NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

I guess you missed the memo on how winning the Senate and House and the Presidency together makes for a "winner take all and fuck the rest" situation...

I consider the 2004 results highly questionable, particularly in Ohio but also throughout the Diebold territories in other states.

...

No I won't say it. I just fucking won't say it.

I guess you missed the memo on how winning the Senate and House and the Presidency together makes for a "winner take all and fuck the rest" situation...

In 2000, the House stayed Republican and the Senate wound up 50-50. The only reason the Republicans got control that year was because of Cheney who became the President of the Senate when he took power.

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."
No, not because "my" candidate didn't win (I was not a great fan of Al Gore), but because the candidate who did win (as far as I can determine) was not inaugurated. That was seriously destructive to the core principles of the country (and of course, Bush has destroyed many other core principles as well, ever since, but that's a different can of worms). Running the 2004 elections with machines that were easily rigged compounded the problem: I am agnostic as to whether Bush really won the second time around (none of the questions that were raised have ever been satisfactorily resolved).

I hated Nixon with a passion, also, but never had reason to question whether he had, in fact, been elected President.
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.He does in fact control the power, who could question that? That does not, in and of itself, command my respect. If, in some bizarre hypothetical, I had been invited to the White House under Nixon, I would have gritted my teeth, shook his hand, and tried to smile for the cameras, out of respect for the office if not the man; but I would not accept an invitation from Bush. To treat a usurper the same as a rightfully elected President would be demeaning, not respecting, the office.

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.
No, it does not actually require any "giant leaps" to conclude that Gore voters outnumbered Bush voters in 2000. The situation in 2004, of course, is quite different, since we are dealing with statistical anomalies rather than tangible ballots.

I do not, of course, swear that "everyone agrees with me": quite the contrary, I have noted from the start that the opposite impression has become widespread. I would dredge up the evidence from seven years ago if I thought it was really of any interest to anyone, but I think most people's opinions are set in stone.

I guess you missed the memo on how winning the Senate and House and the Presidency together makes for a "winner take all and fuck the rest" situation...

Ah, I didn't realize it worked that way. I guess I was wrong to read the constitution. I should have been listening to you all along. Two threads, two rants, no evidence. How's that working out for you?

No, not because "my" candidate didn't win (I was not a great fan of Al Gore), but because the candidate who did win (as far as I can determine) was not inaugurated. That was seriously destructive to the core principles of the country (and of course, Bush has destroyed many other core principles as well, ever since, but that's a different can of worms). Running the 2004 elections with machines that were easily rigged compounded the problem: I am agnostic as to whether Bush really won the second time around (none of the questions that were raised have ever been satisfactorily resolved).

He DID win? Realy? So far, you've demonstrated he MIGHT have won, provided the election rules were entirely changed. Now he DID win. Put up or shut up.

I love the little conspiracy theories though. "Wooo... and then they stole the election with these machines that are entirely traceable and subject to more scrutiny than any ballot save a few in FL ever was." Tell me about Big Foot, daddy. Tell me all about how they're hiding him from me.





No, it does not actually require any "giant leaps" to conclude that Gore voters outnumbered Bush voters in 2000. The situation in 2004, of course, is quite different, since we are dealing with statistical anomalies rather than tangible ballots.

It does require giant leaps. Even the evidence you cited said MIGHT because it requires a leap. The popular vote does not determine the Presidency. Electoral votes do. And Gore didn't win them. So if you'd like to change the rules, you have to do it BEFORE the election. And no amount of unreasonable ranting will change that.


I do not, of course, swear that "everyone agrees with me": quite the contrary, I have noted from the start that the opposite impression has become widespread. I would dredge up the evidence from seven years ago if I thought it was really of any interest to anyone, but I think most people's opinions are set in stone.

If you had evidence, I'd love to see it. But you must realize that the evidence has to prove that within the rules of the election, Gore won. Not in some magical make-believe land where lollipops lick themselves and we just think our votes and suddenly there's a President.

No leap is required. Gore did win the popular vote but under the US Constitution, he did not gain the 270 votes necessary to be President of the United States. Bush did. Ergo, this argument is moot.


There was before he changed his claim. His original claim was that more people voted for Gore in FL. This is patently unsupported.

No, not because "my" candidate didn't win (I was not a great fan of Al Gore), but because the candidate who did win (as far as I can determine) was not inaugurated.

Um...the candidate that won did get inaugurated.

That was seriously destructive to the core principles of the country (and of course, Bush has destroyed many other core principles as well, ever since, but that's a different can of worms).

Study the Constitution some more. You will see that it is the Electoral College that decides the Presidency and NOT THE POPULAR VOTE!

Running the 2004 elections with machines that were easily rigged compounded the problem:


Except for the fact that not all states used them and not all precincts had them to begin with. That wipes that argument out. Oh and Philadelphia had those machines and it voted for Kerry as did the state of PA. OOPS!!

I am agnostic as to whether Bush really won the second time around (none of the questions that were raised have ever been satisfactorily resolved).

:headbang:

if there was as many irregularities as people kept harping about then why in the hell did Congress allow their precious electoral votes proceed as accurate when they could have very well vote to exclude them? Answer me that one.

No, it does not actually require any "giant leaps" to conclude that Gore voters outnumbered Bush voters in 2000.

No leap is required. Gore did win the popular vote but under the US Constitution, he did not gain the 270 votes necessary to be President of the United States. Bush did. Ergo, this argument is moot.

The situation in 2004, of course, is quite different, since we are dealing with statistical anomalies rather than tangible ballots.

Again...why did Congress count Ohio's Electoral Votes even though they could have voted to exclude them?

I do not, of course, swear that "everyone agrees with me": quite the contrary, I have noted from the start that the opposite impression has become widespread. I would dredge up the evidence from seven years ago if I thought it was really of any interest to anyone, but I think most people's opinions are set in stone.

Because facts outweigh conspiracies.

There was before he changed his claim. His original claim was that more people voted for Gore in FL. This is patently unsupported.

Well that's true. I guess I was thinking nationally and not at the state level.

Now to get this thread back on track!!

Well, this is all boiling down to one big super blowout (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_delegates). It should get interesting from here on in, at least moreso then it has been to date. I am sure that the mud will fly and that the heads will get heated.

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton won't catch Barack Obama in the race for Democratic delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses, even if she wins every remaining contest. But Obama cannot win the nomination with just his pledged primary and caucus delegates either, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

That sets the stage for a pitched battle for support among "superdelegates," the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can support whomever they choose.

Two months into the voting, Obama can claim the most delegates chosen by voters.

Clinton can claim victories in most of the big states.
I like the comment at the end of the article:

David Parker, an undecided superdelegate from North Carolina, said he has been pressured by both sides to endorse. He offered some insight on how the outcome of the primaries and caucuses would influence his vote.

"In a fairly tight race — 35-50 votes — I think superdelegates have got a green light to vote how they want," Parker said. "If Obama's out there at 150, that's a red light, and I don't think the superdelegates have much business subverting the will of voters."

But, he added, "Every once in a while some people run red lights."

Now to get this thread back on track!!

Well, this is all boiling down to one big super blowout (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_delegates). It should get interesting from here on in, at least moreso then it has been to date. I am sure that the mud will fly and that the heads will get heated.


Yep. Hillary might not be able to overtake Obama in the primaries (although with a 15+% lead in PA, and other polls looking good, she may get very very close) but she's practically guaranteed a minimum 50 superdelegate edge. Not a bad place to be.

Now to get this thread back on track!!

Well, this is all boiling down to one big super blowout (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_delegates). It should get interesting from here on in, at least moreso then it has been to date. I am sure that the mud will fly and that the heads will get heated.


I like the comment at the end of the article:

So he's basically saying..."screw the voters in a tight race." yea...that'll help the party! NOT!!!

Yep. Hillary might not be able to overtake Obama in the primaries (although with a 15+% lead in PA, and other polls looking good, she may get very very close) but she's practically guaranteed a minimum 50 superdelegate edge. Not a bad place to be.

She's down 150 delegates. There are 600 left. To make it even remotely close she's have to win by at least 100 in the rest of the contests. That's about 58 to 42. That means she'd have to win every contest by one of her biggest leas. Even 15+ in PA is barely enough, and that's not considering she's believed to lose the rest this week. There is no chance she closes this to less than 80.

I love the little conspiracy theories though. "Wooo... and then they stole the election with these machines that are entirely traceable and subject to more scrutiny than any ballot save a few in FL ever was."
Those machines were absolutely UNtraceable (and some are still in use). The scrutiny they have received reveals them to be easily hackable, and there is no way to tell after the fact whether that has been done. All you can do by way of "recount" is tell the machine to print out the same numbers as before, and you have no way of knowing whether those numbers actually reflect what the voters did. There were many reports of the touch-screens "flipping" the vote: you would push "Kerry" and it would light up "Bush" (never the reverse!)

Benign theories for the six-standard-deviation discrepancy between exit polls and official numbers (discrepancies of that size have previously only been found in Third World elections) have been offered, but never substantiated. It has been proposed that Republican voters were less willing to talk to pollsters than Democratic voters (why on such a scale only this time and never before?) or that the exit pollsters did not cover the rural precincts adequately (the organizations have been in this business a long time). Statistical analysis (I have this in hard cover; I'll see if I can find an on-line source) shows that one factor, above all others, is explanatory of the discrepancies: type of voting machine used. There are indeed correlations with percentage of Republican voters, rural vs. urban, etc. but this is not independent of voting machine type: once the correlation with voting machine type is factored out, all that is left is random noise of no multi-standard-deviation size.
It does require giant leaps. Even the evidence you cited said MIGHT because it requires a leap. The popular vote does not determine the Presidency. Electoral votes do.
The popular vote IN FLORIDA should have determined the electoral votes OF FLORIDA.
And Gore didn't win them.
Yes he did.
If you had evidence, I'd love to see it.
I doubt that very much, but I will dig, since you have asked, more or less politely.
But you must realize that the evidence has to prove that within the rules of the election, Gore won.
The "rules" of the election, in the statutes of Florida as in the statutes of every other state, were that the controlling standard is "the intent of the voter". Not "nyahh nyahh, you guys were stupid so your votes don't count", but what did the voters actually want?

Of course there can be (and most certainly were, at the time!) lots of arguments about how to determine the "intent" when this is not clear. There were, famously, many hundreds of partially-detached-chad cases in the punch-card counties. The consortium found that, actually, there were more imperfect punches that looked to be attempts to vote for Bush than those that looked to be attempts to vote for Gore (contrary to the widespread impression, Republicans were slightly more inept than Democrats at the punch-card game) so that the limited recount argued for by Gore's lawyers, limited to the punch-card areas and with generous counting of imperfect cards, would actually have worked against Gore; and this is the germ of truth in the story that "the consortium found that Gore wouldn't have won with his recount". But there are many other types of rejected ballots.

More common, by far, were the optical-scan sheets with the candidate's name written in and the same candidate's circle blackened. There can be no realistic question whatsoever about what the voter's intentions were in these cases. There were thousands of these (I don't have these numbers memorized, nor do I have a link right now-- as I say, I will dig for you, but not this second), enough to overwhelm any uncertainty about how to count the dubious punch-cards. No "giant leap" is required to see that thousands more Floridians wanted Gore than wanted Bush, among this class of ballots, and that is sufficient to determine the outcome.

And then of course there are the nearly 10,000 votes for Buchanan, in Palm Beach, where almost nobody can be found who says they supported Buchanan. Where the butterfly ballot was misread so badly that all we see is a punch for "Buchanan", it does require some knowledge of external reality to determine that probably most of those people really wanted Gore, but, it is indeed an accepted principle in election law that you should not look at anything outside what appears on the ballots to guess at voters' "intent". However, there are several of them where there are two punches "Gore" and "Buchanan", and people have testified they thought they were voting for "Gore" and "Lieberman", which is what those two holes did look like they were for. Is that "too stupid to count"? Fine, if you think so; Gore won on the strength of the optical-scan ballots, anyway. But if you care about what happened in reality, the number of people in Florida who went to the polls intending to vote Gore outnumbered those who went to vote for Bush by about ten thousand: it wasn't really all that close.

Again...why did Congress count Ohio's Electoral Votes even though they could have voted to exclude them?
A damned good question. Basically, because Kerry wimped out and didn't want to fight. But it should not have been up to him. The suspicious irregularities ought to have been investigated officially, not just by stats professors with time on their hands.

So he's basically saying..."screw the voters in a tight race." yea...that'll help the party! NOT!!!

Oh, come on. If it's close enough, having the major players in the party figure out who the best candidate is makes sense. He's right. I certainly wouldn't complain if the will of the voters was that incredibly close. But it won't be. Obama would have to totally self-destructed to get there.

She's down 150 delegates. There are 600 left. To make it even remotely close she's have to win by at least 100 in the rest of the contests. That's about 58 to 42. That means she'd have to win every contest by one of her biggest leas. Even 15+ in PA is barely enough, and that's not considering she's believed to lose the rest this week. There is no chance she closes this to less than 80.

CNN has it 1451/1365. We'll see how it goes this week - don't underestimate Hillary. ;)

Oh, come on. If it's close enough, having the major players in the party figure out who the best candidate is makes sense. He's right. I certainly wouldn't complain if the will of the voters was that incredibly close. But it won't be. Obama would have to totally self-destructed to get there.

If the delegate race is that close then the popular vote will be even closer, at that point there is a case for them to use different measuring sticks to determine the outcome. IF it's that close.

She could pull it out of her ass. The more I watch and listen and read the news, the more I think I was right when I joked that people had the memories of gold fish. This is Super Tuesday all over again, she manages to hold her own and its a huge victory for a candidate that spent a year as a 20 point front runner.

CNN has it 1451/1365. We'll see how it goes this week - don't underestimate Hillary. ;)
You have to use the pledged delegate count.

You have to use the pledged delegate count.

Still doesn't add up to a defeat by any means - 2,025 is the number, and that's a ways off for both of them. 134 votes is doable, especially if MI and FL are back on the table, which looks somewhat likely. Like I was saying, we'll see this week how the polls see it. :)

Yes you are right and guess what? IT DID!!!
No, it did not. The electoral votes of Florida were determined without any serious attempt to figure out what the voters of Florida really wanted.

The popular vote IN FLORIDA should have determined the electoral votes OF FLORIDA.

Yes you are right and guess what? IT DID!!!

A damned good question. Basically, because Kerry wimped out and didn't want to fight. But it should not have been up to him. The suspicious irregularities ought to have been investigated officially, not just by stats professors with time on their hands.

I guess you do not realize that Kerry knew that nothing he did would change the results.

Those machines were absolutely UNtraceable (and some are still in use). The scrutiny they have received reveals them to be easily hackable, and there is no way to tell after the fact whether that has been done. All you can do by way of "recount" is tell the machine to print out the same numbers as before, and you have no way of knowing whether those numbers actually reflect what the voters did. There were many reports of the touch-screens "flipping" the vote: you would push "Kerry" and it would light up "Bush" (never the reverse!)

Uh-huh. How's Big Foot.

The popular vote IN FLORIDA should have determined the electoral votes OF FLORIDA.

It did. You've not shown otherwise.

Yes he did.

Well, as long as you say so, then let's get to fixing it. I mean who needs that silly evidence.


I doubt that very much, but I will dig, since you have asked, more or less politely.

You doubt that? I would love to see it. So far you're lightly referenced ballots that were not cast properly (see, elections have these things called rules and all). And your only bit of evidence said MIGHT if they recounted the ENTIRE state (which, in fact, they did, because under law there is an automatic recount when it's so close).


The "rules" of the election, in the statutes of Florida as in the statutes of every other state, were that the controlling standard is "the intent of the voter". Not "nyahh nyahh, you guys were stupid so your votes don't count", but what did the voters actually want?

They don't get to guess at the intent, however. If the intent suggests that two different people were voted for, which was right? There were a number of anamolies, but no fair way of addressing them did Gore win.

1,520--Obama 1,424--Clinto n

That's with super delegates

For the pledged:

1,321 Pledged for Obama 1,186 Pledged for Clinton

Haven't seen those numbers anywhere. Sources help. If CNN's no good, I suggest:

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

No, it did not. The electoral votes of Florida were determined without any serious attempt to figure out what the voters of Florida really wanted.

Oh, dear God, this is a blatant lie. They made a more serious attempt to figure out what the voters wanted than nearly any election in history. The votes in Florida were counted more carefully than any state in the nation and in every count Gore lost.

You can't claim that under different rules he might have won and try to present evidence, but claiming no serious attempt was made just tossed your credibilty out the window.

CNN has it 1451/1365. We'll see how it goes this week - don't underestimate Hillary. ;)

Um...the pledged delegate count is in Obama's favor by 135 delegates.

CNN has it 1451/1365. We'll see how it goes this week - don't underestimate Hillary. ;)

Um, no, they don't. They're also speculating poorly. I think you'll find when they finally count all of the delegates from this week, that the difference is well above 140. It's at 139 on MSNBC without showing the caucus delegates from Texas where Obama is up by 12 points. Pretending it's as close as you say is really just wishful thinking. It's unlikely it'll get that close before the end.

CNN has it 1451/1365. We'll see how it goes this week - don't underestimate Hillary. ;)

1,520--Obama 1,424--Clinto n

That's with super delegates

For the pledged:

1,321 Pledged for Obama 1,186 Pledged for Clinton

No, it did not.

Yes it did.

The electoral votes of Florida were determined without any serious attempt to figure out what the voters of Florida really wanted.

Um...yea right. Keep thinking that.

Haven't seen those numbers anywhere. Sources help. If CNN's no good, I suggest:

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

Um, you realize your source entirely disagrees with you, no?

It has Obama up by 144 pledged delegates. You know how to read their counts, yes? Because I can't fathom why' you pretend that source supports your claim.

When talking about whether or not the SD's will support Clinton, you have to look at pledged delegates and she can't even make it close.

Um, no, they don't. They're also speculating poorly. I think you'll find when they finally count all of the delegates from this week, that the difference is well above 140. It's at 139 on MSNBC without showing the caucus delegates from Texas where Obama is up by 12 points. Pretending it's as close as you say is really just wishful thinking. It's unlikely it'll get that close before the end.

Those numbers were CNN via Slate - their article might've been a few hours older than some others, but I think RCP has it right, and I linked to that later.

In any case, both Gov. Crist and Sen. Nelson in FL are for a re-do of their state's primary. That could be big for Hillary, especially if the polls continue togo her way. She's picked up 11 points in PA just since the 4th. I wouldn't expect gains like that everywhere, but it could add up in the long run. It's a long way until June.

Oh, dear God, this is a blatant lie. They made a more serious attempt to figure out what the voters wanted than nearly any election in history. The votes in Florida were counted more carefully than any state in the nation and in every count Gore lost.

You can't claim that under different rules he might have won and try to present evidence, but claiming no serious attempt was made just tossed your credibilty out the window.

Well said!

Name: Total Pledged Super

Obama--1520 1321 199
Clinton--1424 1186 238

Looks like Obama wins, eh? Not bad at all.

Those numbers were CNN via Slate - their article might've been a few hours older than some others, but I think RCP has it right, and I linked to that later.

In any case, both Gov. Crist and Sen. Nelson in FL are for a re-do of their state's primary. That could be big for Hillary, especially if the polls continue togo her way. She's picked up 11 points in PA just since the 4th. I wouldn't expect gains like that everywhere, but it could add up in the long run. It's a long way until June.

Even with that (a re-do in MI and FL), she's got to hold 15 point leads in EVERY state. Her best seems to be about that. Her biggest win this week was 18 percent and her average for this week isn't even close to what she needs to hold. A momentum shift isn't enough, she's got to kill Obama to win. I'm not sure even doing that literally would work.

Haven't seen those numbers anywhere. Sources help. If CNN's no good, I suggest:

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

My numbers do come from CNN:

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

Name: Total Pledged Super

Obama--1520 1321 199
Clinton--1424 1186 238

So tell me. Where on CNN are those numbers you are getting?

I was listening to the News Hour in the car and I got the distinct impression from interviews from officials from both Michigan and Florida that a redo is what they are going to go for, it's just a matter of who is going to pay for it. The belief is, from the interview, is that even if they could pony up the twentysome million for a full primary that they don't have the structure for it, and they don't like the idea of a caucus, so the two options are a 'firehouse' primary (where union houses and such are used for a primary, this is favored in Michigan) or a mail primary that will run $5 million in Florida and the suggestion that the candidates might pay for it.

There is a sense of realism from both of them that if they have this argument too long they'll miss their window. I would say it's likely that within the next week or two we'll see an announcement that the candidates are ponying up for a new primary of some sort paid at least in part by the candidates.

Obama raised $55 million last month, an all time record in fund raising. He can spare the $5 mil to have Florida vote for real.

Even with that, she's got to hold 15 point leads in EVERY state. Her best seems to be about that. Her biggest win this week was 18 percent and her average for this week isn't even close to what she needs to hold. A momentum shift isn't enough, she's got to kill Obama to win. I'm not sure even doing that literally would work.

I'm not suggesting she's likely to close the gap, unless, as I was saying, she continues to gain in the polls as she's been doing, which isn't terribly likely. She's down big in the popular vote to this point, but can close that gap if FL is back in, and to a lesser extent MI. That might persuade more than a few superdelegates, and seeing as almost 350 of them are unaccounted for, that might mean something if she's up going into the convention. It's hard to count the Clintons out, is what I'm saying here.

I'm not suggesting she's likely to close the gap, unless, as I was saying, she continues to gain in the polls as she's been doing, which isn't terribly likely. She's down big in the popular vote to this point, but can close that gap if FL is back in, and to a lesser extent MI. That might persuade more than a few superdelegates, and seeing as almost 350 of them are unaccounted for, that might mean something if she's up going into the convention. It's hard to count the Clintons out, is what I'm saying here.

No, it isn't. Watch me. People want to count her in because it's fun and keeps people watching, but this will the biggest Dem mistake in history of the SD's override the popular vote, the bulk of the states, the bulk of the delegates, they're looking to destroy the party.

No, it isn't. Watch me. People want to count her in because it's fun and keeps people watching, but this will the biggest Dem mistake in history of the SD's override the popular vote, the bulk of the states, the bulk of the delegates, they're looking to destroy the party.

No question the media loves a horserace. No question she'll probably be trailing in pledged delegates going into the convention. I'm saying there's the possibility that she comes out ahead, that's all. I doubt the Clintons or their allies would think they were destroying the party by tipping the balance in her favor, and I don't think the average Democrat is going to stay home in November, even if they suspect a corrupt bargain gave her the nomination. It gets awfully noisy in the Beltway echo-chamber, and the supposed will of the people could be drowned out quickly.

No question the media loves a horserace. No question she'll probably be trailing in pledged delegates going into the convention. I'm saying there's the possibility that she comes out ahead, that's all. I doubt the Clintons or their allies would think they were destroying the party by tipping the balance in her favor, and I don't think the average Democrat is going to stay home in November, even if they suspect a corrupt bargain gave her the nomination. It gets awfully noisy in the Beltway echo-chamber, and the supposed will of the people could be drowned out quickly.

There's gonna be a severe political ruckus if they overwhelm a clear distinction in the will of the people. It will hurt the party and it's probably the only chance the Reps have to win the general election. It'll be bloody and a HUGE mistake. For Hilllary, she can't afford to lose one vote. About 40% of the country hates her.

No question the media loves a horserace. No question she'll probably be trailing in pledged delegates going into the convention. I'm saying there's the possibility that she comes out ahead, that's all. I doubt the Clintons or their allies would think they were destroying the party by tipping the balance in her favor, and I don't think the average Democrat is going to stay home in November, even if they suspect a corrupt bargain gave her the nomination. It gets awfully noisy in the Beltway echo-chamber, and the supposed will of the people could be drowned out quickly.


Umm....I would. Hell, if they override the will of the people, I will actively campaign against Hillary Clinton.

How do ya like dem apples?

No question the media loves a horserace. No question she'll probably be trailing in pledged delegates going into the convention. I'm saying there's the possibility that she comes out ahead, that's all. I doubt the Clintons or their allies would think they were destroying the party by tipping the balance in her favor, and I don't think the average Democrat is going to stay home in November, even if they suspect a corrupt bargain gave her the nomination. It gets awfully noisy in the Beltway echo-chamber, and the supposed will of the people could be drowned out quickly.

And for some reason, the average democrat wants the will of the people to be honored and not discarded.

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.

Just to note, it's not my post as such, both positions were lifted directly off each candidates home page the day after Texas and Ohio - it was their position not mine, I was just c+p'ing them.

Just to note, it's not my post as such, both positions were lifted directly off each candidates home page the day after Texas and Ohio - it was their position not mine, I was just c+p'ing them.

I know.

:)

I thought you knew but my sensitive side wanted to make sure,

For me, I think I'm going to ignore the primaries for a week or so now, I'd rather they'd been over after Tuesday, it does seem a never ending story.

Umm....I would. Hell, if they override the will of the people, I will actively campaign against Hillary Clinton.

How do ya like dem apples?

I had to laugh at the bolded. :D

Okay, I was just doing some quick number crunching in regards to the states won by each candidate so far in regards to their electoral college votes:

Clinton = 219 (263 if you add both Florida and Michigan)

Obama = 193

Electoral College votes won in States that were won by Kerry in 2004:

Clinton = 121 (138 if you add Michigan)

Obama = 86

Umm....I would. Hell, if they override the will of the people, I will actively campaign against Hillary Clinton.

How do ya like dem apples?

And I, .. I will CUT OFF MY NOSE TO SPITE MY FACE!!!

I will! I'll do it! Don't try me!

Okay, I was just doing some quick number crunching in regards to the states won by each candidate so far in regards to their electoral college votes:

Clinton = 219 (263 if you add both Florida and Michigan)

Obama = 193

Electoral College votes won in States that were won by Kerry in 2004:

Clinton = 121 (138 if you add Michigan)

Obama = 86

Great. If they win the states that Kerry won, what will happen?

I suppose you consider her to have won Texas as well, though in delegates, she's likely going to lose the state.

And I, .. I will CUT OFF MY NOSE TO SPITE MY FACE!!!

I will! I'll do it! Don't try me!

Frankly, I don't think it's just spite. If she's willing to override the will of the people, if the entire party is willing to do that, particularly after they've been bitching for 7 years about how Gore won the popular vote, then, frankly, I wouldn't want them in the white house. Any of them.

I don't find McCain so frightening that I would support a candidate willing to do anything to gain power.

Personally, I don't really think she's trying to do that. I think she really wants to find a way to shift the momentum her way enough to make it really close, where a win from her isn't so bad. But if they overwhelm the clear choice of the people, then I'd have to agree, that party and the person who champions that idea, don't deserve the WH.

Okay, I was just doing some quick number crunching in regards to the states won by each candidate so far in regards to their electoral college votes:

Clinton = 219 (263 if you add both Florida and Michigan)

Obama = 193

Electoral College votes won in States that were won by Kerry in 2004:

Clinton = 121 (138 if you add Michigan)

Obama = 86

And what's your point?

And I, .. I will CUT OFF MY NOSE TO SPITE MY FACE!!!

I will! I'll do it! Don't try me!


I wouldnt be about spite. It would be hypocritical, under handed, and I wouldnt want a party that ignores the will of the people in a republic to gain control of said republic.

So, thats why Id campaign against her. Id campaign for the Vulcan;)

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 make an agreement you stand by it. All of the candidates agreed to the rules and that's that. Michigan and Florida agreed to the party rules a year and a half ago. Is your word worth anything anymore? The greatest part about it is that, if they would have just stayed in their own spot they would have played a tremendous role in the process. As it is you are only as good as your word is. This says a lot about character above all else.

You make an agreement you stand by it. All of the candidates agreed to the rules and that's that. Michigan and Florida agreed to the party rules a year and a half ago. Is your word worth anything anymore? The greatest part about it is that, if they would have just stayed in their own spot they would have played a tremendous role in the process. As it is you are only as good as your word is. This says a lot about character above all else.

I'm curious. And I openly admit I know little about this Michigan and Florida issue.

I saw an article today that had someone pointing out that it was a Republican legislature and Republican governor that moved the primary date. I don't think I believe this is the full story. Can anyone fill me in? Is this true?

Are Florida Democrats being punished for the sins of Republicans?

I wouldnt be about spite. It would be hypocritical, under handed, and I wouldnt want a party that ignores the will of the people in a republic to gain control of said republic.

So, thats why Id campaign against her. Id campaign for the Vulcan;)

You are begging the question of what is the "will of the people" if the primary comes down to Superdelegates. How do you measure "the will of the people" if the primaries and caucuses don't yield a winner?

All of you huffing about Florida and "the rules" seem to be forgetting on the other hand that "the rules" include Superdelegates.

Nor are Superdelgates some alien Illuminati. They are primarily elected Democratic officials. And others who have gained the party's trust.

You are begging the question of what is the "will of the people" if the primary comes down to Superdelegates. How do you measure "the will of the people" if the primaries and caucuses don't yield a winner?

All of you huffing about Florida and "the rules" seem to be forgetting on the other hand that "the rules" include Superdelegates.

Nor are Superdelgates some alien Illuminati. They are primarily elected Democratic officials. And others who have gained the party's trust.

My point is, if Obama has a clear lead, like he does now, and the SD's say "Meh, too bad. I like Hillary better." Ill be pissed.


You dont get to bitch about Bush winning without the popular vote and then choose your candidate in spite of said popular vote.

I'm curious. And I openly admit I know little about this Michigan and Florida issue.

I saw an article today that had someone pointing out that it was a Republican legislature and Republican governor that moved the primary date. I don't think I believe this is the full story. Can anyone fill me in? Is this true?

Are Florida Democrats being punished for the sins of Republicans?

Florida is run by Republicans and Michigan is being run by Democrats. And they aren't being punished per se. There isn't a really viable solution. There state wasted the money by voting when they knew it wouldn't be legally accepted. Now everyone involved is boned because those states flipped off both parties.

They can't just seat them. There was a fair and open election. I have family members who were pissed and didn't vote, because it didn't matter. (For the record, I told them to just vote to make the point.) We're from Chicago. Our ideas are all over the political spectrum, but to a man or woman, we support Obama and have for some time. I suspect there are people like that about the Clintons. There really is no legitimate way to tell what the will of the people truly is in Florida.

And Michigan is worse, because most of the candidates did as the party asked and removed their names from the ballot. Hillary got a pretty significant win, but she only managed to be "anyone else" by about 18 points. It's clear the will of the people isn't being reflected by giving her the delegates and none to Obama.

But now the Democratic party is going to have to pony up the cash to fix it, even though both parties agreed on dates and these two states broke the rules. The states can't afford to revote so everyone's up the creek.

I still hold that Obama should front the dollars for a caucus in both states. And I think that CTOAN is right, that it puts the onus on Hillary to either make up the difference for a primary. It plays well for him no matter what. Or they could be humans and just get together agree to help the will of the people be heard and split it.

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.




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?

So if you and I make an agreement today we have a binding deal right? If in a year you decide you don't want to follow our agreement I have legal recourse against you in court. You cannot then say, "well things have changed." Unless I have broken the contract or somehow defrauded you then you're shit out of luck. Sorry, this is about honor, respect, and most of all your good word. I was raised to think that those things still matter.

Okay, I was just doing some quick number crunching in regards to the states won by each candidate so far in regards to their electoral college votes:

Clinton = 219 (263 if you add both Florida and Michigan)

Obama = 193

Electoral College votes won in States that were won by Kerry in 2004:

Clinton = 121 (138 if you add Michigan)

Obama = 86
Lets look at what tacit implications have to be made in order to make this relevant-

First, the democratic candidate will only[i/] carry states that they won in the primaries. If they lost those primaries, no matter by what margin or if they still got more votes than the winner of the respective Republican primary, that state is now up for grabs. The weight of this assumption leans on California and New York, the high value states that make that summation possible. They [i]will vote for Clinton, but not for Obama.

The second is that votes for Kerry against Bush carry over to votes for McCain against the democratic candidate. And again, these states will only remain constant if the candidate they voted for in the primary is the nominee. If not, they will vote for McCain.

This doesn't seem ridiculous to you? Isn't it this exact kind of 'only these states matter' strategy that has the one time double digit front runner playing an impossible game of catch up? I cited this in an article earlier-with Obama as the candidate McCain is facing someone with an active base who has campaigned in 40-45, at this point maybe all 50, the ability to draw money like literally no other candidate has ever done (last month set a fundraising record), and he will go into the general campaign with an infrastructure and base already built in just about every state. McCain will then have to play catch up, he'll have to play the 'states that matter' game. The same one that eliminated Guiliani from the campaign, the one that has Clinton playing catch up. The one that will have to decide where to spend money on not just where it might be able to pick up key wins but where they have to defend vulnerable senate and house seats.

I'm not saying that it's a guarantee that Obama can convert that into a win, I'm saying it's an edge. And when you're trying to convince me that someone can win, you do a lot better job of pointing to a structure than conceding defeat to nearly half the country before even starting the fight.

My point is, if Obama has a clear lead, like he does now, and the SD's say "Meh, too bad. I like Hillary better." Ill be pissed.


You dont get to bitch about Bush winning without the popular vote and then choose your candidate in spite of said popular vote.

This is an asinine argument.

You can certainly argue whether the super delegates should pick Senator Obama because he has a better chance of winning the election but you simply cannot argue they should pick him purely on popular vote and then compare that to Al Gore.

They're entirely different - the super delegates are there for a particular reason, to be able to influence the results when, in their minds, the one that wins the popular vote is not the best candidate for the general election.

Now you can argue that, there's clearly a strong argument in Senator Obama's favour, but you can't just say it's hypocritical for them to ignore the popular vote - that's pretty much their point of existence.

Obviously a loss. :)


She did win the Texas Primary yes.....more voters vote in that then in the caucus. Another reason that caucuses are not so good, in relation to a primary.

Although, I did not include Texas for Hillary in regards to states won by Kerry in 2004 because Kerry didn't win Texas.

Oh, yes, I forgot. More about how some people's votes don't "really" count. She didn't win Texas. It's a game of delegates. She didn't win. Obama recognizes how the game is played and it's working. It's likely it will work in November. He's got McCain in a bad place already and McCain is playing catch up. And we can argue all month and have, but Hillary is losing and there's really no way for her to win without changing the rules or just plain ignoring the will of the majority of the democratic party.

My point is, if Obama has a clear lead, like he does now, and the SD's say "Meh, too bad. I like Hillary better." Ill be pissed.

You dont get to bitch about Bush winning without the popular vote and then choose your candidate in spite of said popular vote.

Frankly, I don't think it's just spite. If she's willing to override the will of the people, if the entire party is willing to do that, particularly after they've been bitching for 7 years about how Gore won the popular vote, then, frankly, I wouldn't want them in the white house. Any of them.

I don't find McCain so frightening that I would support a candidate willing to do anything to gain power.

Personally, I don't really think she's trying to do that. I think she really wants to find a way to shift the momentum her way enough to make it really close, where a win from her isn't so bad. But if they overwhelm the clear choice of the people, then I'd have to agree, that party and the person who champions that idea, don't deserve the WH.

So about 135 pledged delegates out of a possible 3,253 delegates is such a "clear lead" that it establishes the "will of the people"?

And, even though the rules of the contest clearly allow the Superdelegates to vote differently than the pledged delegates, it is somehow cheating to win by Superdelegates?

This is an asinine argument.

You can certainly argue whether the super delegates should pick Senator Obama because he has a better chance of winning the election but you simply cannot argue they should pick him purely on popular vote and then compare that to Al Gore.

They're entirely different - the super delegates are there for a particular reason, to be able to influence the results when, in their minds, the one that wins the popular vote is not the best candidate for the general election.

Now you can argue that, there's clearly a strong argument in Senator Obama's favour, but you can't just say it's hypocritical for them to ignore the popular vote - that's pretty much their point of existence.

Oh, and the electoral college isn't? The argument from many dems has been going on for seven years that Gore won the popular vote and should have been President. You can't make that argument and then override the popular vote of your own party. You can't. At all.

Great. If they win the states that Kerry won, what will happen?
Obviously a loss. :)

I suppose you consider her to have won Texas as well, though in delegates, she's likely going to lose the state.
She did win the Texas Primary yes.....more voters vote in that then in the caucus. Another reason that caucuses are not so good, in relation to a primary.

Although, I did not include Texas for Hillary in regards to states won by Kerry in 2004 because Kerry didn't win Texas.

I'm curious. And I openly admit I know little about this Michigan and Florida issue.

I saw an article today that had someone pointing out that it was a Republican legislature and Republican governor that moved the primary date. I don't think I believe this is the full story. Can anyone fill me in? Is this true?

Are Florida Democrats being punished for the sins of Republicans?

Vote History:
Chamber Date Yeas Nays Actions Barcode
House 03/21/2007 01:24 PM 115 1 Passage Vote [Seq# 30]
Senate 04/27/2007 11:49 AM 37 2 Vote [Seq# 28]
House 05/03/2007 11:31 AM 118 0 Passage Vote [Seq# 457]

Probably has something to do with the fact that overall hardly anyone opposed the move.

They're entirely different - the super delegates are there for a particular reason, to be able to influence the results when, in their minds, the one that wins the popular vote is not the best candidate for the general election.



Thats the point of the electoral college too...

Come on admit it....it is just because you don't want a woman for President?


Wow, youre an idiot.


Your right. Im a bigot. Which is why Im so strongly supporting a black man. And why I openly advocate that Nancy Pelosi should run for president.


It has nothing to do with Clinton's alleged vagina and everything to do with her being a psycho who will do anything to get power.


Besides, Clinton is no woman. I see through the drag.

In this case yes for Hillary needs 15%+ victories to even over take Obama and that is in every single state. That's pretty damn near impossible to achieve at this moment. Even the Candidate Slider Game proves this.

If the superdelegates goes against the will of the people, then yes it would be considered cheating and the animosity is not something that the party needs at the moment.

You are begging the question of what equals "the will of the people" again.

If the "will of the people" is whoever has the most pledged delegates --regardless of other factors and a failure to reach 2,025 -- then why even have superdelegates? Aren't you changing "the rules" because you don't like the possible outcome?

EDIT: I sincerely want Senator Obama to win the nomination AND the election, but all this talk that any win by Senator Clinton would be cheating is just poisoning the well.

Umm....I would. Hell, if they override the will of the people, I will actively campaign against Hillary Clinton.

How do ya like dem apples?

You've already said that several times in this and other threads, and not even regarding whether Hillary could win by shennanigans, but whether she would win, hypothetically, *at all*. :p So, those apples are quite rotten by now. ;)

So about 135 pledged delegates out of a possible 3,253 delegates is such a "clear lead" that it establishes the "will of the people"?

And, even though the rules of the contest clearly allow the Superdelegates to vote differently than the pledged delegates, it is somehow cheating to win by Superdelegates?

I'm not accusing her of cheating. I'm accusing the party of being guilty of what they complain about. I don't usually vote Dem anyway, so it's really unimportant. But they've got a candidate that has energized the public like no other. And the people lined up behind him. He fought an uphill battle, the same battle she ended up having to fight, and managed to turn in an outstanding performance in the primaries. People are excited. You can't have the party leadership look at that and thumb their nose at it.

The design of that system is to prevent an upset win by someone that is bad for the party. They better have a serious argument that Obama is if they use that power and negate the votes of all those states and territories and make them mean little to nothing.

I think there is a way she wins. If she begins a landslide right at the end, a true and heavy shift of momentum, the argument could clearly be made that the will of the people has changed. And, hell, I might buy that.

But if it's just that old club of politicians, putting in another from that old club of politicians, the shit's gonna hit, Cat, and I'm not going to be sorry. I'll be silently hoping it's the beginning of the end for this tired two-party system. I won't vote for Hillary just to keep McCain from win. I don't fear vote. My vote is an endorsement and if she wants it, she'll earn it, like Obama did, and she isn't going to do that by proving she's more in the club than he is.

I wouldnt be about spite. It would be hypocritical, under handed, and I wouldnt want a party that ignores the will of the people in a republic to gain control of said republic.

So, thats why Id campaign against her. Id campaign for the Vulcan;)
Come on admit it....it is just because you don't want a woman for President?

So about 135 pledged delegates out of a possible 3,253 delegates is such a "clear lead" that it establishes the "will of the people"?

In this case yes for Hillary needs 15%+ victories to even over take Obama and that is in every single state. That's pretty damn near impossible to achieve at this moment. Even the Candidate Slider Game proves this.

And, even though the rules of the contest clearly allow the Superdelegates to vote differently than the pledged delegates, it is somehow cheating to win by Superdelegates?

If the superdelegates goes against the will of the people, then yes it would be considered cheating and the animosity is not something that the party needs at the moment.

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.

Jesus, can we please not have this stupid argument again? This is 2008, let's deal with today.

Come on admit it....it is just because you don't want a woman for President?

Jesus H. Fucking Christ! :headbang:

You've already said that several times in this and other threads, and not even regarding whether Hillary could win by shennanigans, but whether she would win, hypothetically, *at all*. :p So, those apples are quite rotten by now. ;)

Voting third party is different from actively campaigning against her.


Who knows? Maybe Ill end up voting for her anyway.

Come on admit it....it is just because you don't want a woman for President?

Oh, come on, we all know that you're big complaint is that Obama is black. That's why you won't listen to reason. You don't want a woman president, you just know Clinton, you'd just rather have a woman than a filthy black man, right? Plus, once she's got the nod, McCain will go after her, and we can stick with white men.

(See how stupid your arguments have become?)

Voting third party is different from actively campaigning against her.

Your pronouncement wasn't a shock, is all. ;) I get where you're coming from, either way.

So about 135 pledged delegates out of a possible 3,253 delegates is such a "clear lead" that it establishes the "will of the people"?

You do know this is approximately how much she won NM, NH, NV and the texas primary. She's been cheering about the will of the people from Tuesday. The net difference was about the same as what you're talking about. She apparently agrees that such a difference clearly demonstrates the will of the people. Who am I to argue?

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 agreements and your word really mean nothing when it comes right down to it? If they would have stayed where they were they'd be in a great position to affect the system right now. You don't agree to the rules, play the game, and when it suits you ask for everyone else to go back on the agreement you made. It's that simple, black and white. If people in those states voted during the primary then they damn sure will vote during the general. Anyone who doesn't go out to vote because of some party squabbling is too stupid to be trusted with a vote anyhow. You must be a ton of fun playing monopoly.

Wow, youre an idiot.

Your right. Im a bigot. Which is why Im so strongly supporting a black man. And why I openly advocate that Nancy Pelosi should run for president.

It has nothing to do with Clinton's alleged vagina and everything to do with her being a psycho who will do anything to get power.

Besides, Clinton is no woman. I see through the drag.
I asked but a simple question and your vitriolic response suggests that I may have touched a nerve.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. :D

I asked but a simple question and your vitriolic response suggests that I may have touched a nerve.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. :D


So, why dont you like Obama? Is it because hes a ******?


See how stupid I sound?

You do know this is approximately how much she won NM, NH, NV and the texas primary. She's been cheering about the will of the people from Tuesday. The net difference was about the same as what you're talking about. She apparently agrees that such a difference clearly demonstrates the will of the people. Who am I to argue?

Oh, come now. You are being disingenuous and you know it. ;)

Given the drivel you just typed, you obviously don't know shit from shinola. However, you are welcome to your own twisted vision of the world. Carry on.

Cut it out already. You aren't helping anyone's cause, least of all your own.

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.

Enough of the sidetracking of the argument. You two go have your little pissing match somewhere else.

Enough of the sidetracking of the argument. You two go have your little pissing match somewhere else.

We've been done for some time...

See how stupid I sound?
Well, I am not going to disagree with you on that. :p

However, my question was based on an earlier comment you had made in regards to feminists in general, and your rather crass use of the word "vagina".

KoL is right. You are an idiot. We are not against Hillary because she's a woman, we are against her because she's a power hungry bitch who would do just about anything to gain the prize she wants and to fuck the majority of the people who have thus voted in the primary to date.

When you say 'we' please be clear who you are including in your statements.

You are begging the question of what equals "the will of the people" again.

If the "will of the people" is whoever has the most pledged delegates --regardless of other factors and a failure to reach 2,025 -- then why even have superdelegates? Aren't you changing "the rules" because you don't like the possible outcome?

First off, I hate timewarps. Posts get lost in them and if I had not gone back a page, I would not have seen this.

Secondly, no I am not changing the rules of the game. It is simple really. If Obama has the most pledged candidates, the superdelegates should go for him for he has the majority of the party on his side. If the superdelegates put Clinton ahead of Obama then the democratic party just told the majority of the people who voted in the democratic primary that their votes are worthless. I'm not the one changing the rules of the game here. If anything, that goes to Hillary who wants MI and FL seated and counted even though they broke party rules by moving up their primary when told not to.

EDIT: I sincerely want Senator Obama to win the nomination AND the election, but all this talk that any win by Senator Clinton would be cheating is just poisoning the well.

Not really since the only way she can win is by those superdelegates even if she has less pledged candidates than Obama does.

KoL is right. You are an idiot. We are not against Hillary because she's a woman, we are against her because she's a power hungry bitch who would do just about anything to gain the prize she wants and to fuck the majority of the people who have thus voted in the primary to date.

Gee, is McCain not a power-hungry bitch because he's a man?

You oughtta check yourself.

Oh, come on, we all know that you're big complaint is that Obama is black. That's why you won't listen to reason. You don't want a woman president, you just know Clinton, you'd just rather have a woman than a filthy black man, right? Plus, once she's got the nod, McCain will go after her, and we can stick with white men.

(See how stupid your arguments have become?)
Given the drivel you just typed, you obviously don't know shit from shinola. However, you are welcome to your own twisted vision of the world. Carry on.

Oh, come now. You are being disingenuous and you know it. ;)

Of course, but you see the point. This is part of the problem. Why were the rules good enough for her until she need FL and MI. Why do some states matter and not others? And why is it that when it's in her favor a small percentage is a shift of momentum and when it's for him, it just doesn't matter. Obama has won something like 13 states by around 20%. She waved them off like they don't matter. Her states matter. Ohio mattered. He congratulated her for the win, as a matter of fact. He didn't dismiss it as a state that didn't matter. I'm tired of rules of convenience.

As far as the SD's I've said exactly why I protest to them deciding the outcome. It has nothing to do with it being cheating and everything to do with it being exactly what my problem is with both parties.

I asked but a simple question and your vitriolic response suggests that I may have touched a nerve.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. :D

KoL is right. You are an idiot. We are not against Hillary because she's a woman, we are against her because she's a power hungry bitch who would do just about anything to gain the prize she wants and to fuck the majority of the people who have thus voted in the primary to date.

I wouldnt be about spite. It would be hypocritical, under handed, and I wouldnt want a party that ignores the will of the people in a republic to gain control of said republic.

So, thats why Id campaign against her. Id campaign for the Vulcan;)
Come on admit it....it is just because you don't want a woman for President?

Oh, come on, we all know that you're big complaint is that Obama is black. That's why you won't listen to reason. You don't want a woman president, you just know Clinton, you'd just rather have a woman than a filthy black man, right? Plus, once she's got the nod, McCain will go after her, and we can stick with white men.

(See how stupid your arguments have become?)

Given the drivel you just typed, you obviously don't know shit from shinola. However, you are welcome to your own twisted vision of the world. Carry on.
I just thought that whole exchange should be in one place...

Given the drivel you just typed, you obviously don't know shit from shinola. However, you are welcome to your own twisted vision of the world. Carry on.

*plays taps for the lost cause that is CH*

Given the drivel you just typed, you obviously don't know shit from shinola. However, you are welcome to your own twisted vision of the world. Carry on.

The "drivel" was an emulation of what you typed. I see, it's twisted when someone accused you of bigotry for not liking your candidate, but you can do it with impugnity, right? In fact, given that your assumption is that the only reason to be so vitriolic about one of the Dem candidates is bigotry, I'd say the accusation is more evidence-based than your claim.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I asked but a simple question and your vitriolic response suggests that I may have touched a nerve.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. :D

See what I did there. :D And now I have a smiley so I must be right.

Gee, is McCain not a power-hungry bitch because he's a man?

You oughtta check yourself.

At least McCain doesn't wave off states because it suits him the way Clinton has. At least McCain is more honest than Clinton is when it comes to his record.

Wooo...come on people, flinging insults doesn't make you look in any way intelligent on this subject.

If Senator Clinton is on record saying the Electoral College should have voted for Al Gore then, sure, she's shot herself in the foot over this.

However, from my own perspective, always debatable, the issue was over counting the votes from Florida and allowing them or not in certain cases. All this was made moot when Al Gore conceded.

Regardless, the fact remains that no matter this debate, Senator Clinton has her case and will continue to make it, and she has every right to do so - for people to say it's cheating is clearly not the case.

As for Michigan and Florida, as someone else has said - Jocabia? - the people to blame are the states themselves for pushing, and those who originally agreed can't argue this, I think Senator Clinton has a poor case here and I think the idea of Senator Obama stumping up the money is a great idea, except there's no way in hell he'll do it, why take the chance when his case that this was decided already stands to serve him better.

Gee, is McCain not a power-hungry bitch because he's a man?

You oughtta check yourself.

I hate to defend him, but I think the difference is in how each of the three are going about going after the Presidency. Honestly, I would say if Obama does win and McCain employs the same tactics he deserves the same criticisms. I don't approve of the language, but the point is clearly defensible.

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"

Well, let's look at the actual results.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

This site breaks them down by year by state.

2000, 2004 Red 1992-1996 Blue just slightly with WJC

88 red 84 red 80 red 76 blue 72 red 68 red 64 blue for homeboy lbj 60, blue by .17% so call it a draw 56 red 52 red 48 blue truman over dewey

Before then there were dixicrats so no bother to go to then. So total them up

Red 9 blue 4 and a draw. So I think that about settles it.

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

I did that and you'll see it soon if you look.

Well, let's look at the actual results.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

This site breaks them down by year by state.

2000, 2004 Red 1992-1996 Blue just slightly with WJC

88 red 84 red 80 red 76 blue 72 red 68 red 64 blue for homeboy lbj 60, blue by .17% so call it a draw 56 red 52 red 48 blue truman over dewey

Before then there were dixicrats so no bother to go to then. So total them up

Red 9 blue 4 and a draw. So I think that about settles it.


Thanks. I was looking for that site but couldnt find it.

I'm not accusing her of cheating. I'm accusing the party of being guilty of what they complain about. I don't usually vote Dem anyway, so it's really unimportant. But they've got a candidate that has energized the public like no other. And the people lined up behind him. He fought an uphill battle, the same battle she ended up having to fight, and managed to turn in an outstanding performance in the primaries. People are excited. You can't have the party leadership look at that and thumb their nose at it.

The design of that system is to prevent an upset win by someone that is bad for the party. They better have a serious argument that Obama is if they use that power and negate the votes of all those states and territories and make them mean little to nothing.

I think there is a way she wins. If she begins a landslide right at the end, a true and heavy shift of momentum, the argument could clearly be made that the will of the people has changed. And, hell, I might buy that.

But if it's just that old club of politicians, putting in another from that old club of politicians, the shit's gonna hit, Cat, and I'm not going to be sorry. I'll be silently hoping it's the beginning of the end for this tired two-party system. I won't vote for Hillary just to keep McCain from win. I don't fear vote. My vote is an endorsement and if she wants it, she'll earn it, like Obama did, and she isn't going to do that by proving she's more in the club than he is.

Cat, if you missed this...

By the way, Jolt REALLY needs to fix this. This is the worst I can every remember it being. They are off by several minutes at least.

Cat, if you missed this...

By the way, Jolt REALLY needs to fix this. This is the worst I can every remember it being. They are off by several minutes at least.

Six minutes by my clock. Its really really getting annoying.

I'm not sure who some of you think you are fooling by claiming you oppose Senator Clinton because of her recent campaign tactics, when many of you loudly declared your opposition to her long ago.

(And i'll get to your post eventually, Jocabia) ;)

Those machines were absolutely UNtraceable (and some are still in use). The scrutiny they have received reveals them to be easily hackable, and there is no way to tell after the fact whether that has been done. All you can do by way of "recount" is tell the machine to print out the same numbers as before, and you have no way of knowing whether those numbers actually reflect what the voters did. There were many reports of the touch-screens "flipping" the vote: you would push "Kerry" and it would light up "Bush" (never the reverse!)

Benign theories for the six-standard-deviation discrepancy between exit polls and official numbers (discrepancies of that size have previously only been found in Third World elections) have been offered, but never substantiated. It has been proposed that Republican voters were less willing to talk to pollsters than Democratic voters (why on such a scale only this time and never before?) or that the exit pollsters did not cover the rural precincts adequately (the organizations have been in this business a long time). Statistical analysis (I have this in hard cover; I'll see if I can find an on-line source) shows that one factor, above all others, is explanatory of the discrepancies: type of voting machine used. There are indeed correlations with percentage of Republican voters, rural vs. urban, etc. but this is not independent of voting machine type: once the correlation with voting machine type is factored out, all that is left is random noise of no multi-standard-deviation size.

The popular vote IN FLORIDA should have determined the electoral votes OF FLORIDA.

Yes he did.

I doubt that very much, but I will dig, since you have asked, more or less politely.

The "rules" of the election, in the statutes of Florida as in the statutes of every other state, were that the controlling standard is "the intent of the voter". Not "nyahh nyahh, you guys were stupid so your votes don't count", but what did the voters actually want?

Of course there can be (and most certainly were, at the time!) lots of arguments about how to determine the "intent" when this is not clear. There were, famously, many hundreds of partially-detached-chad cases in the punch-card counties. The consortium found that, actually, there were more imperfect punches that looked to be attempts to vote for Bush than those that looked to be attempts to vote for Gore (contrary to the widespread impression, Republicans were slightly more inept than Democrats at the punch-card game) so that the limited recount argued for by Gore's lawyers, limited to the punch-card areas and with generous counting of imperfect cards, would actually have worked against Gore; and this is the germ of truth in the story that "the consortium found that Gore wouldn't have won with his recount". But there are many other types of rejected ballots.

More common, by far, were the optical-scan sheets with the candidate's name written in and the same candidate's circle blackened. There can be no realistic question whatsoever about what the voter's intentions were in these cases. There were thousands of these (I don't have these numbers memorized, nor do I have a link right now-- as I say, I will dig for you, but not this second), enough to overwhelm any uncertainty about how to count the dubious punch-cards. No "giant leap" is required to see that thousands more Floridians wanted Gore than wanted Bush, among this class of ballots, and that is sufficient to determine the outcome.

And then of course there are the nearly 10,000 votes for Buchanan, in Palm Beach, where almost nobody can be found who says they supported Buchanan. Where the butterfly ballot was misread so badly that all we see is a punch for "Buchanan", it does require some knowledge of external reality to determine that probably most of those people really wanted Gore, but, it is indeed an accepted principle in election law that you should not look at anything outside what appears on the ballots to guess at voters' "intent". However, there are several of them where there are two punches "Gore" and "Buchanan", and people have testified they thought they were voting for "Gore" and "Lieberman", which is what those two holes did look like they were for. Is that "too stupid to count"? Fine, if you think so; Gore won on the strength of the optical-scan ballots, anyway. But if you care about what happened in reality, the number of people in Florida who went to the polls intending to vote Gore outnumbered those who went to vote for Bush by about ten thousand: it wasn't really all that close.


A damned good question. Basically, because Kerry wimped out and didn't want to fight. But it should not have been up to him. The suspicious irregularities ought to have been investigated officially, not just by stats professors with time on their hands.

You all want to argue the past again take it to anther thread. Done with the 2000 and 2004, more of the 2008.

I'm not sure who some of you think you are fooling by claiming you oppose Senator Clinton because of her recent campaign tactics, when many of you loudly declared your opposition to her long ago.

(And i'll get to your post eventually, Jocabia) ;)




I actually had no probelm with her till around super tuesday, when she realized it wasnt a sure thing for her anymore and the claws came out.


She was never my first choice, but I used to be one who would defend her among family and friends. Now I dont. In fact, Im one of the most aggressive;)

Wooo...come on people, flinging insults doesn't make you look in any way intelligent on this subject.

If Senator Clinton is on record saying the Electoral College should have voted for Al Gore then, sure, she's shot herself in the foot over this.

However, from my own perspective, always debatable, the issue was over counting the votes from Florida and allowing them or not in certain cases. All this was made moot when Al Gore conceded.

Regardless, the fact remains that no matter this debate, Senator Clinton has her case and will continue to make it, and she has every right to do so - for people to say it's cheating is clearly not the case.

As for Michigan and Florida, as someone else has said - Jocabia? - the people to blame are the states themselves for pushing, and those who originally agreed can't argue this, I think Senator Clinton has a poor case here and I think the idea of Senator Obama stumping up the money is a great idea, except there's no way in hell he'll do it, why take the chance when his case that this was decided already stands to serve him better.

I think that with the lead he has and the kind of winning streak she has to go on in order to close the gap and be arguable he doesn't lose anything by having them do a redo. In fact, if it continues to be close he's in a better position to have a redo rather than having those huge phantom loses looming over him. Even if he loses the redos he won't lose them by such a margin. Especially in Michigan.

He's not Hillary Clinton. (who very well may be Satan.)

I'm not sure who some of you think you are fooling by claiming you oppose Senator Clinton because of her recent campaign tactics, when many of you loudly declared your opposition to her long ago.

(And i'll get to your post eventually, Jocabia) ;)

I've never liked the Clintons, but I'll say that I've actually been turned on SOME of the reasons I disliked her by this process. I didn't care enough to check before, and I actually suggested she'd be a great candidate in 2000 (for 2004) when I thought we needed to shake things up after that debacle. I've turned on some of the things she said. My biggest current beefs with her are as a result of this process. I still think she's a fair candidate, but I don't think there's a likely way she wins this and holds my support. She'll have to go scorched earth to get the nomination and I don't support that ever. And if Obama falls into the same tactics, I'll be against them both.

I actually had no probelm with her till around super tuesday, when she realized it wasnt a sure thing for her anymore and the claws came out.

She was never my first choice, but I used to be one who would defend her among family and friends. Now I dont. In fact, Im one of the most aggressive;)

Hmm. I was under the impression you denounced Senator Clinton prior to Super Tuesday.

link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410694&postcount=57), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13420499&postcount=12), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410657&postcount=56)

I'm not doubting your integrity, just your memory. ;)

Those numbers were CNN via Slate - their article might've been a few hours older than some others, but I think RCP has it right, and I linked to that later.

In any case, both Gov. Crist and Sen. Nelson in FL are for a re-do of their state's primary. That could be big for Hillary, especially if the polls continue togo her way. She's picked up 11 points in PA just since the 4th. I wouldn't expect gains like that everywhere, but it could add up in the long run. It's a long way until June.

RCP does have it right. Crist and Nelson want it but don't want to pay for it. So it looks like it won't happen. PA is a little far off, but the RCP average is not 11. 11 is an outlier so we need more data.

RCP does have it right. Crist and Nelson want it but don't want to pay for it. So it looks like it won't happen. PA is a little far off, but the RCP average is not 11. 11 is an outlier so we need more data.

I'm of the opinion (stated earlier but time warped into oblivion) that within the next two weeks we'll see the campaigns splitting the bill for either a 'firehouse' primary or a mail in one.

I'm not accusing her of cheating. I'm accusing the party of being guilty of what they complain about. I don't usually vote Dem anyway, so it's really unimportant. But they've got a candidate that has energized the public like no other. And the people lined up behind him. He fought an uphill battle, the same battle she ended up having to fight, and managed to turn in an outstanding performance in the primaries. People are excited. You can't have the party leadership look at that and thumb their nose at it.

The design of that system is to prevent an upset win by someone that is bad for the party. They better have a serious argument that Obama is if they use that power and negate the votes of all those states and territories and make them mean little to nothing.

I think there is a way she wins. If she begins a landslide right at the end, a true and heavy shift of momentum, the argument could clearly be made that the will of the people has changed. And, hell, I might buy that.

But if it's just that old club of politicians, putting in another from that old club of politicians, the shit's gonna hit, Cat, and I'm not going to be sorry. I'll be silently hoping it's the beginning of the end for this tired two-party system. I won't vote for Hillary just to keep McCain from win. I don't fear vote. My vote is an endorsement and if she wants it, she'll earn it, like Obama did, and she isn't going to do that by proving she's more in the club than he is.

First, I have to admire the chutzpah it takes for someone who is (1) not a Democrat and (2) wants the end of the party to lecture the party on how it picks its nominee. ;)

Second, I think it is a little early to be denouncing Senator Clinton's path to victory. I don't think she is going to win and I don't think you can guess at what might happen to make her win.

Third, are you saying that if Clinton is the nominee, you won't vote or you'll vote for McCain? How has he earned your endorsement?

Fourth, I still think you argument makes assumptions about the "will of the people" that ignore the rules of the primary process. Aren't there states where Senator Clinton won more votes, but got less delegates? Why aren't you screaming about that?

Hmm. I was under the impression you denounced Senator Clinton prior to Super Tuesday.

link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410694&postcount=57), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13420499&postcount=12), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410657&postcount=56)

I'm not doubting your integrity, just your memory. ;)

Well those were all said around super tuesday. I guess we need to define around.

After Iowa and NH. I was irked with her before NH though because the fake crying thing pissed me off.

Okay, I was just doing some quick number crunching in regards to the states won by each candidate so far in regards to their electoral college votes:

Clinton = 219 (263 if you add both Florida and Michigan)

Obama = 193

Electoral College votes won in States that were won by Kerry in 2004:

Clinton = 121 (138 if you add Michigan)

Obama = 86

So you're presuming that states like California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York are not going to vote for Democratic in the general? Because that's basically the argument you are making. I understand it's the "new" Clinton argument of the day but it fails so utterly in logic. Winning electoral college votes is =/= winning primaries. These "big states" will still go blue. Barack won Battleground states like Iowa and Missouri. She won Ohio. I don't see how this new argument makes any more sense then any others.

I'm curious. And I openly admit I know little about this Michigan and Florida issue.

I saw an article today that had someone pointing out that it was a Republican legislature and Republican governor that moved the primary date. I don't think I believe this is the full story. Can anyone fill me in? Is this true?

Are Florida Democrats being punished for the sins of Republicans?

It's the Democratic party leaders who pushed for it. If party leaders did not agree they wouldn't be allowed Dems in June. It was the party officials and that's why they have to live up to their promises.

I always like debating with you TCT.

Hmm. I was under the impression you denounced Senator Clinton prior to Super Tuesday.

link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410694&postcount=57), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13420499&postcount=12), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410657&postcount=56)

I'm not doubting your integrity, just your memory. ;)

The third link reminds me why I don't post after drinking anymore...:(

Reads like a fifth-grader wrote it...

Here is Senator Clinton's reply on Michigan and Florida, saying she didn't agree with the decision but she did agree not to campaign or vote...

There are has been talk about you being concerned that voters in Florida and Michigan would be disenfranchised. When the Democratic National Committee was making its policy in those two states, we knew that was going to happen. Why were you not concerned then about them being disenfranchised?
Oh I was. I said it at the time. I wasn't on the DNC, I didn't have a vote on that. I pointed out how important it is for us to carry Michigan — you can't win without carrying Michigan and how critical it is to carry Florida. We haven't won without it and we face a much more difficult electoral map if we don't have Florida in our column. I feel strongly that the votes of Michigan and Florida should count. What I agreed to was not to campaign in either state and I did not campaign. I didn't hold press conferences. I didn't do political events. I complied with the rules as they were put forth for the candidates. But 1.7 million democratic voters in Florida were privy to that agreement and Florida is in a particularly unfortunate position, because the Democrat have no say in when their primary is going to be held. It was after the first four contests that everyone tries to carve out a special space. And the voters of Florida clearly took it seriously. I think that there is an effort both on the part of the Democratic Governor in Michigan and Florida to try to figure out how to sort this through. I feel strongly that we shouldn't be telling Democratic voters in states we have to carry that their votes don't count.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900-2,00.html) - this is a TIME interview with her the day after Ohio and Texas (sorry Vermont and Rhode Island, I tend to dismiss your importance :) )

Here is Senator Clinton's reply on Michigan and Florida, saying she didn't agree with the decision but she did agree not to campaign or vote...

There are has been talk about you being concerned that voters in Florida and Michigan would be disenfranchised. When the Democratic National Committee was making its policy in those two states, we knew that was going to happen. Why were you not concerned then about them being disenfranchised?
Oh I was. I said it at the time. I wasn't on the DNC, I didn't have a vote on that. I pointed out how important it is for us to carry Michigan — you can't win without carrying Michigan and how critical it is to carry Florida. We haven't won without it and we face a much more difficult electoral map if we don't have Florida in our column. I feel strongly that the votes of Michigan and Florida should count. What I agreed to was not to campaign in either state and I did not campaign. I didn't hold press conferences. I didn't do political events. I complied with the rules as they were put forth for the candidates. But 1.7 million democratic voters in Florida were privy to that agreement and Florida is in a particularly unfortunate position, because the Democrat have no say in when their primary is going to be held. It was after the first four contests that everyone tries to carve out a special space. And the voters of Florida clearly took it seriously. I think that there is an effort both on the part of the Democratic Governor in Michigan and Florida to try to figure out how to sort this through. I feel strongly that we shouldn't be telling Democratic voters in states we have to carry that their votes don't count.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900-2,00.html) - this is a TIME interview with her the day after Ohio and Texas (sorry Vermont and Rhode Island, I tend to dismiss your importance :) )



I want proof that she at the time was worried about them, not her saying now "Oh well I was..."

Here is Senator Clinton's reply on Michigan and Florida, saying she didn't agree with the decision but she did agree not to campaign or vote...

There are has been talk about you being concerned that voters in Florida and Michigan would be disenfranchised. When the Democratic National Committee was making its policy in those two states, we knew that was going to happen. Why were you not concerned then about them being disenfranchised?
Oh I was. I said it at the time. I wasn't on the DNC, I didn't have a vote on that. I pointed out how important it is for us to carry Michigan — you can't win without carrying Michigan and how critical it is to carry Florida. We haven't won without it and we face a much more difficult electoral map if we don't have Florida in our column. I feel strongly that the votes of Michigan and Florida should count. What I agreed to was not to campaign in either state and I did not campaign. I didn't hold press conferences. I didn't do political events. I complied with the rules as they were put forth for the candidates. But 1.7 million democratic voters in Florida were privy to that agreement and Florida is in a particularly unfortunate position, because the Democrat have no say in when their primary is going to be held. It was after the first four contests that everyone tries to carve out a special space. And the voters of Florida clearly took it seriously. I think that there is an effort both on the part of the Democratic Governor in Michigan and Florida to try to figure out how to sort this through. I feel strongly that we shouldn't be telling Democratic voters in states we have to carry that their votes don't count.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900-2,00.html) - this is a TIME interview with her the day after Ohio and Texas (sorry Vermont and Rhode Island, I tend to dismiss your importance :) )
Shit, I knew I should bookmark this since it keeps coming up. Oh well, I learn something new about the search function every time I do it anyway (also, depressing, this will be my 174th post in this thread), anyway, here it goes again-

Where the fuck was she in 2007 when the decision to strip them of their delegates was made? Huh? This shit is from October-

The DNC, as it does every presidential cycle, voted in mid-2006 to give special permission to certain small states to hold early caucuses and primaries. This time around the winning states were the traditional Iowa and New Hampshire, plus South Carolina (first moved to the front row in 2004) and Nevada (the new state on the early calendar). The DNC's rationale was compelling: Small states require personal campaigning rather than airport rallies, and they prevent politics from totally degenerating into a contest of who has the most money for TV ads. With the exception of the kerfuffle over caucus locations in Nevada, the early states did their job well in giving a fair look to the Democratic field before narrowing it down to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

No other state, under the DNC's regulations, could hold a primary or caucus before Feb. 5. But last year, first Florida and then Michigan defiantly scheduled their 2008 primaries in January. This queue jumping not only undermined the special status of the four small states, but it also meant unfairly squeezing ahead of the throng of 22 states that had slated primaries and caucuses for Feb. 5.

The abuse was so flagrant that not only did the DNC play tough guy (stripping Michigan and Florida of all their convention delegates), but the party chairs in the four small front-of-the-pack states pressured the candidates into signing a pledge not to campaign in the two outlaw primaries. Obama and Edwards, in fact, even took their names off the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot in which Clinton beat "uncommitted" by a 55-to-40 percent margin.

And you want to paint this as a concern for the voters? Bull-fucking-shit. This decision was made in 2007, but when did Clinton make her grumble?

Only when the dimensions of her South Carolina setback were clear did Clinton begin portraying the Florida vote as ... well ... the 2000 Florida vote. The former first lady suddenly had a new cause -- justice for Florida. She pledged on primary night to do everything in her power to guarantee that "Florida's Democratic delegates [are] seated."

There was a time to make this argument, there was a time to champion this cause. After the fact when you're struggling isn't it. She had a fucking year, a year.[edit-meh, since October of last year, point still stands] But it's not until she already 'wins' Michigan and is falling behind in states that have delegates that she takes it up.

Where's her concern for the agreed upon process? About diminishing the small states that were given their positions so as not to get skipped over entirely?

What about Michigan's Mark Brewer counting on the DNC not having any teeth-
Mark Brewer, the Michigan party chairman, radiates optimism that his state will get its delegates back. "In the past when such penalties have been imposed on states that have gone early, they have always been lifted," he said in an interview. "But beyond that, the political reality is that Michigan is a targeted battleground state ... It would be political suicide for the Democratic nominee to refuse to seat us and hope to win Michigan in November."

He could end this, but will he?

In the short term, under Democratic Party rules, Michigan and Florida could theoretically petition for a do-over, asking to hold a party-sanctioned caucus or primary between Feb. 5 and June 10. But Brewer insists that the DNC has not asked Michigan to hold another delegate contest -- and he added, "If they did, we would refuse."

There are solutions that are equitable for all. Clinton's is a grab no matter how you paint it. No one, I'm betting even you alone in the dark, buy this 'concern for the voters' nonsense, not when there were and are so many opportunities for equitable resolutions.

source (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/30/hillary/)

More on 'where the fuck was she in October when this decision was made?'

Well, where was she? Was she campaigning to have the votes counted? Was she speaking out against this decision?

She was, rather, shutting out reporters from Florida (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/30/florida/index.html?source=sphere) (from an article at the time)-
Two weeks ago, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times was denied a chance to speak with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, because he carried the scarlet letter of his home state. "You're still from Florida," the spokeswoman told him. "A tiger can't change its stripes." Last week when Bill Clinton came to south Florida to host a fundraiser for 2,000 people in Miami, the Miami Herald had to contribute a $50 fundraising ticket to witness his only appearance in the state.

Still want to try and paint this as anything other than opportunism?

This is an interesting analysis- (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=the_florida_vote)
In comments, many of you asked how I could be so dismissive of Floridians who voted for Hillary Clinton. And the answer is, I'm not. I didn't keep their vote from counting. When the Democratic National Committee decided to impose order on an out-of-control primary process by stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates if they refused to return their primaries to their original dates, there were three individuals who could have restored the franchise to those states. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the DNC, could have changed his mind, or changed his proposed penalty. Even in the face of his intransigence, however, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could have simply refused his entreaty to avoid the offending states. A declaration by either that they disagreed with the DNC's decision and would instruct their delegates to alter the rules at the convention and seat Florida and Michigan would have forced all the other candidates to do the same, and the DNC's prohibition would have collapsed. The voters in Florida and Michigan would have attended speeches, and seen ads, and hosted a debate, and been able to make an informed choice

That didn't happen. Clinton's campaign manager backing the DNC, said, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role." So Florida and Michigan didn't get their primaries. They didn't get campaigns. They didn't have serious Get Out The Vote efforts. And now, they're being cynically used, the language of democracy revisited and dusted off in service of a power play for additional delegates. Where, rightly or wrongly, the campaigns agreed to deny them a primary, now Clinton's campaign, which in Michigan won because they were the only campaign on the ballot and in Florida won because no one contested their lead, is demanding they be seated. The intervention did not come in time to give Florida and Michigan a full role in the democratic process, only in time to let the Clinton campaign benefit from their essential disenfranchisement.

"But this is a blog!" Read on...

Another source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902998_pf.html) cites the same quote-
"There are more voters in Florida alone than there are in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina combined," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle argued in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. This was the same Solis Doyle who last summer committed Clinton to signing the Florida boycott pledge, saying, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

And another, this one actually dated Sept. 1st, 2007 (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/09/top-democrats-s.html)-
Now this Democratic boycott is serious.
On Saturday, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards added their names to the list of Democratic presidential hopefuls who plan to skip campaigning in Florida and other states that violate national party rules for when they can stage primaries.
This from Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager:
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden a day earlier endorsed the so-called "four state" pledge not to veer from the small-state Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina road to the party nomination.
After Clinton's announcement, Florida Democratic Party Executive Director Leonard Joseph issued a letter stating "No matter which cards we're dealt, Florida Democrats are going to win the state's 27 electoral votes and elect a Democratic President in 2008. The country needs us."
But the reaction from state Democratic stalwarts is decidedly less upbeat.
I found the abstract of the original article, but you have to pay for it so, you know...no. But it seems clear this isn't a 'made up' quote and certainly underlines the opportunistic nature of this sudden desire for the votes to be heard.

From September- (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt)
The Clinton campaign announced they would sign the pledge on Sept. 1.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role," Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle said in a statement that day.

CTOAN, also have to remember that this is a merged thread so your posts that you made in others that were merged with this one, makes up that number :D

So you're presuming that states like California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York are not going to vote for Democratic in the general? Because that's basically the argument you are making.
No, that is not the argument I am making.

I understand it's the "new" Clinton argument of the day but it fails so utterly in logic.
What exactly is the "new" Clinton arguement that you refer to?

Winning electoral college votes is =/= winning primaries.
My point goes back to the red blue arguement. Obama is winning many red states that I suggest will stay red. Hillary is strong in the swing states, such as Florida and Ohio.

These "big states" will still go blue.
Pennsylvania was a gain for Kerry. It could go red depending on the candidate.

Barack won Battleground states like Iowa and Missouri.
Barely on both counts.

She won Ohio. I don't see how this new argument makes any more sense then any others.
I see Hillary winning Ohio, and Florida. Something that Kerry couldn't do, and Obama might not do.

CTOAN, also have to remember that this is a merged thread so your posts that you made in others that were merged with this one, makes up that number :D
Yeah, that'd make me feel better if the total was 75, not 175...

No, that is not the argument I am making.
Except it kind of is, which I also addressed here-
Lets look at what tacit implications have to be made in order to make this relevant-

First, the democratic candidate will only carry states that they won in the primaries. If they lost those primaries, no matter by what margin or if they still got more votes than the winner of the respective Republican primary, that state is now up for grabs. The weight of this assumption leans on California and New York, the high value states that make that summation possible. They [i]will vote for Clinton, but not for Obama.

The second is that votes for Kerry against Bush carry over to votes for McCain against the democratic candidate. And again, these states will only remain constant if the candidate they voted for in the primary is the nominee. If not, they will vote for McCain.

This doesn't seem ridiculous to you? Isn't it this exact kind of 'only these states matter' strategy that has the one time double digit front runner playing an impossible game of catch up? I cited this in an article earlier-with Obama as the candidate McCain is facing someone with an active base who has campaigned in 40-45, at this point maybe all 50, the ability to draw money like literally no other candidate has ever done (last month set a fundraising record), and he will go into the general campaign with an infrastructure and base already built in just about every state. McCain will then have to play catch up, he'll have to play the 'states that matter' game. The same one that eliminated Guiliani from the campaign, the one that has Clinton playing catch up. The one that will have to decide where to spend money on not just where it might be able to pick up key wins but where they have to defend vulnerable senate and house seats.

I'm not saying that it's a guarantee that Obama can convert that into a win, I'm saying it's an edge. And when you're trying to convince me that someone can win, you do a lot better job of pointing to a structure than conceding defeat to nearly half the country before even starting the fight.





What exactly is the "new" Clinton arguement that you refer to?
Barrington listed it earlier in the thread, @ page 88 or so.



My point goes back to the red blue arguement. Obama is winning many red states that I suggest will stay red. Hillary is strong in the swing states, such as Florida and Ohio.


Pennsylvania was a gain for Kerry. It could go red depending on the candidate.


Barely on both counts.


I see Hillary winning Ohio, and Florida. Something that Kerry couldn't do, and Obama might not do.
The old undefended one? Look like it's chestnut night...

It's the old unaddressed electability counter argument again, but this time the added poll directly contrasts CH's claim, see the bolded note below.

Clinton
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Ohio
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Wisconsin
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado

This was in response to CH's claim that Obama was just winning mostly Red States and so his wins didn't matter. But six of his 23 wins, or 1/4th of them, have been swing states compared to Clinton's four swing state wins. He hasn't so much as disputed their swing state status with me. In fact, the closest I've gotten to a response is to restate his premise that Obama has won mostly Red States and that Clinton can win the swing states. Jocabia's list and my list have both countered that.

My other list was polls of swing states (and others, since I'm going to update it again) from RCP. This actually gives him room to argue but again, completely ignored-

Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain.
New ones (changed from the first time) in green, newer ones (changed for this post) in purple. Unfortunately you have to go to the post and then click the arrow (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466972&postcount=202) to see the original numbers to compare. The most notable difference from the first time I did this was the dramatic drop of both Clinton and Obama in Florida, Obama falling much further.

Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 49, Clinton 43, Und 8 McCain +6
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 53, Obama 37, Und 10 McCain +16
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 44, Clinton 43, Und 8 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 40, Und 10 McCain +2
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 41, Und 17 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 46, Clinton 43, Und 11 McCain +3
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 42, Clinton 52, Und 6 Clinton +10
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 44, Obama 47, Und 9 Obama +3
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 42, Und 14 McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 49, Und 12 Obama +10
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Franklin & Marshall McCain 46, Clinton 46, Und 8 Tie
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Franklin & Marshall McCain 44, Obama 43, Und 13 McCain +1
Missouri: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 43, Clinton 42, Und 15 McCain +1
Missouri: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 40 McCain +2
Colorado: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 46, Undecided 15 Obama +7
Colorado: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 49, Clinton 35, Undecided 16 McCain +14
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 36, Obama 49 Obama +13
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 43, Und 16 Clinton +2
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 41, Obama 51, Und 8 Obama +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 52, Clinton 41, Und 7 McCain +11
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 37, Und 16 McCain +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 41, Obama 44, Und 15 Obama +3
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 41, Obama 51, Und 8 Obama +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 52, Clinton 41, Und 7 McCain +11
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 49, Clinton 42, Und 9 McCain +7
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 42, Obama 52, Und 6 Obama +10
Minnesota: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 42, Und 11 McCain +5
Minnesota: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 38, Obama 53, Und 9 Obama +15
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 48, Clinton 45, Und 7 McCain +3
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 45, Obama 51, Und 4 Obama +6
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 51, Clinton 41, Und 8 McCain +10
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 44, Und 7 McCain +5
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 48, Clinton 45, Und 7 McCain +3
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 45, Obama 51, Und 4 Obama +6
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 45, Clinton 42, Und 13 McCain +3
Oregon: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 40, Obama 49, Und 11 Obama +9
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 49, Clinton 41, Und 10 McCain +8
Oregon: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 47, Obama 48, Und 6 Obama +1
New York: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 41, Clinton 52, Und 7 Clinton +11
New York: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 36, Obama 57, Und 7 Obama +21
New York: McCain vs. Clinton Siena McCain 42, Clinton 49, Und 9 Clinton +7
New York: McCain vs. Obama Siena McCain 40, Obama 47, Und 13 Obama +7
Kansas: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 59, Clinton 35, Und 6 McCain +24
Kansas: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 50, Obama 44, Und 6 McCain +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 47, Und 12 Clinton +6
New Jersey: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 39, Obama 46, Und 15 Obama +7
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 47, Und 14 Obama +8
Michigan: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 44, Und 12 Tie
New Mexico: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 44, Obama 44 Tie
New Mexico: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 50, Clinton 38 McCain +12


Not all of those are swing states by current definitions, but some of them show swing where there might not have been before. The list has grown unruly so I'll condense the results by collections of states-

McCain Leads Both Match Ups (States where Obama loses by less in italic)
Florida
[i]Ohio
Missouri
Virginia
Kansas

States Obama is Leading but Clinton is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Virginia (Second new poll as well)
Oregon
New Mexico (I gave Pennsylvania to Clinton, so...)


States Clinton is Leading but Obama is Trailing McCain
Pennsylvania (Clinton is in a tie actually, Obama trails so I gave it to Clinton to give CH the fairest shake)


States Both Clinton and Obama Lead (States where Obama has a greater margin in italics)
New Hampshire
New York (on of them has it at a tie)
New Jersey
Michigan (Clinton actually ties McCain, but again, to give the fairest shake)
Ohio

This has gone completely unaddressed. CH now uses the 'god' defense, his assertions are true and can't be proved wrong unless Obama wins the nomination, ergo we should not have Obama as the nominee. To which I have responded-


Of course, he has largely abandoned the electability argument in favor of "OMG! He's going to invade Pakistan!!!"

Notes on why I update this now-One of the key states in CH's initial electability premise was New Mexico. Well, match up polls are now available in orange. Now, I fully acknowledge that February polls will bare little resemblance to the ones in November, but considering the gulf that Clinton has to clear versus the dead heat Obama starts with, it's hard to buy that aspect of CH's argument.

The age of the polls go like this-plain, oldest, first update, second, third.
At this stage now it's five swing states for Clinton to six swing states for Obama. This argument simply doesn't hold water, not in the line up and not with what I outlined in my more recent post responding to you dredging this argument up again.

I want proof that she at the time was worried about them, not her saying now "Oh well I was..."

Here you go, and Lord knows I'm struggling with this but its from a news report from October 2007:

Why would the other campaigns drop out of a major battleground state less than three months before the voting is to begin?

One big reason is the pressure on these candidates from Iowa and New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent South Carolina and Nevada, which are furious with Michigan (and Florida) for muscling into the early primary lineup in violation of the rules. Michigan has been seething for years that little Iowa and New Hampshire have had such a big role in shaping the nominations, saying they aren’t representative of the rest of the country.

“In these early states, issues matter more than money, celebrity and advertisements,” David Bonior, the campaign manager for Mr. Edwards, said in a statement., “Voters want and deserve a candidate who represents real people, not corporate special interests.”

That was a slam at Mrs. Clinton, in case you didn’t pick that up.

Her advisers said it would be foolish to rebuff an important swing state, especially since doing so could alienate Democratic-leaning independents who could be leaning toward Mrs. Clinton. Her staying in could add to the aura of inevitability that she has been cultivating, but she is also taking a risk that her move will not hurt her in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/top-democrats-pull-from-michigan/)

It's a real stretch but the idea is that, in terms of the actual election, it's important not to rebuff an important swing state.

Now we can argue about why this was important to her but I would argue it was because she'd assumed the nomination and was therefore looking at the actual election.

It does, however, point to some consistency in her argument that to dismiss Florida and Michigan, two important swing states, is to damage the Democrats chances for the election.

I'd also say that her agreement to sign the pledge, as quoted by CToaN, is especially terse in comparison with the other candidates.

Stretching yes, just saying and mostly for the interest of researching because I took your point about proof of saying something previously and it tickled my curiosity as to whether I could find it - the fact that I could only find such a weak link doesn't, I guess, say much.

No, that is not the argument I am making.

It's not? So you'll be happy to factor solid blue states into your math, then.

What exactly is the "new" Clinton arguement that you refer to?

The argument you're making. That Clinton somehow does better in the electoral college then Obama.


My point goes back to the red blue arguement. Obama is winning many red states that I suggest will stay red. Hillary is strong in the swing states, such as Florida and Ohio.

No, Obama is mostly winning red states and Clinton is mostly winning blue states.
By the way, Obama wins many of the states he wins with huge numbers. (Over 60% of the vote.)
The only state Clinton has won by that kind of margin is Arkansas, which is pretty clearly red.


Pennsylvania was a gain for Kerry. It could go red depending on the candidate.

This is true, but it doesn't really support your argument at all.


Barely on both counts.

Clinton has won every single state she's campaigned it "barely", with the exception again of Arkansas, which doesn't matter anyway.


I see Hillary winning Ohio, and Florida. Something that Kerry couldn't do, and Obama might not do.
Are you sure? Because remember, there are quite a few Republicans that hate her guts.
I am quite confident that Obama could win those states if he tries. Remember, it's still only March.

First, I have to admire the chutzpah it takes for someone who is (1) not a Democrat and (2) wants the end of the party to lecture the party on how it picks its nominee. ;)

Second, I think it is a little early to be denouncing Senator Clinton's path to victory. I don't think she is going to win and I don't think you can guess at what might happen to make her win.

Third, are you saying that if Clinton is the nominee, you won't vote or you'll vote for McCain? How has he earned your endorsement?

Fourth, I still think you argument makes assumptions about the "will of the people" that ignore the rules of the primary process. Aren't there states where Senator Clinton won more votes, but got less delegates? Why aren't you screaming about that?

First, I'm lecturing them on hypocrisy. I happen to feel they are the more redeemable of the parties, but I'd say this would be the nail in the coffin.

Second, I'm not denouncing her path to victory. I already said I don't think she'll actually go fully scorched earth. And I laid out some ways she could win where I would support her.

Third, I'm saying I'll vote, but I won't vote for her. I can't imagine a scenario where I'd vote for McCain at this point. I used to think he was a much better candidate and wanted him to win the nomination in 2000. Now, I think he's past his prime. (Yes, that's an age thing. He's definitely lost a step and I do think it's age-related.)

Forth, if she loses by one delegate, I'd certainly take issue with that. I think it's a really odd design for a primary. Purportedly, like in Texas, it's designed to focus the votes on democrats, and prevent cross-party voting (also the reason for having super delegates). I don't really like it. However, I'm not talking about whether they HAVE to follow the will of the people or not. I'm talking about the fact that this is the part that said the will of the people is king and that because of a slight lead in popular vote, they attacked whether the Presidency was legitimate for 7.5 years.

There is a flaw in it, of course, because of caucuses, if you go strictly by popular vote, you be screwing many of the states. Really I think the will of the people is best kept closest to them. I've always thought that. I don't like the electoral college for that reason. But since the states chose their electoral process, their methods of giving the delegates to the convention should be honored. There are so many SD's that they could pretty much overwhelm any lead if they like. It's by design. It's to prevent the hijacking of the party. The problem is I don't think they are ready to argue that Obama hijacked the party. And if he didn't, then they are expected to honor the popular delegates votes. The rules don't REQUIRE them to. But they are expected to. That's my point.

I'm an independent and I hate the current state of politics. I don't like that's constantly a game of insiders protecting themselves from outsiders. I don't like that it's a game that has consistently concentrated power, rather than keeping it at the people where possible, and when not, as diversified as possible. Clinton, McCain, Bush, Kerry, et al allowed that power to become increasingly centered in the Presidency, and both McCain and Clinton have defended that move. And now they're just passing it back and forth between families since I was 6. Clinton COULD get my vote, but if she wants it, she's got to show that she's going to stand up to that kind of politics, not get in bed with it. I admit I've been a fan of Obama since I first encountere him in the 90's, but my issue with his opposition is not because of him. I haven't been excited about a Presidential candidate in my lifetime. I love my country and I'd truly like to see someone in the White House that acts like this is about putting someone into power who will wield the power of the White House responsibly. I believe that's Obama. I believe that might be Clinton. But she goes scorched earth and she's basically saying, it's me or you get nothing. She hasn't entirely done that yet, but some of the recent tactics have really stuck in my craw. Now, Obama's stuff on NAFTA I think was a little low. They're supposed to be try to change something. They should be showing us that politics can be just a college of ideas, instead of a warzone. So far, she's shown the latter. Occasionaly, and sadly, Obama has shown some of that too and I really hope that he doesn't end up in the muck too, or I'll not vote for any of them.

Yeah, that'd make me feel better if the total was 75, not 175...

We have the same number. Hehe.

We have the same number. Hehe.

I really need work to pick up...

Well, you've kind of called me out. Time for me to bring in my refutation of the whole "she wins the states that matter" nonsense. Yes, yes, I know, he'll just complain that by looking at actual evidence we're missing the point which is to wave our arms and hope people listen, but let's just quietly hope.

Isn't there some wrestler who waves his hand in front of his face, something about not being able to see somethingorother...? Maybe he's a wrestling fan...

I'm going to make another point about my last post.

It questions why some candidates pulled their name off the ballot for Michigan and says that the reason is that they feared keeping thier name on would harm their chances for the early primaries - that since NH and Iowa were angry at Michigan's stunt, it might be politically advantageous to pull their name off to show their support for these two state's position.

Senator Clinton, in contrast, thought that this might have longer term issues for the Democrats by dismissing two swing states.

The point here is that candidates do these things for politically motivated reasons, they have analysts advising them of the implications of each decision.

In some senses, this simply makes Senator Clinton's push for the inclusion of these two states a fair politically motivated move and to harangue her for something that she seems to have recognised early on is slightly unfair.

The reason for this conclusion is that, in the same vein, she couldn't be seen to not pledge on September 1st, 2007, and remember that she was the last to pledge, again because advisors would say that this would damage her perceived loyalty to the Democratic party, something that was unwise back then. Now the clear implications of that are apparent, her, and I admit 'assumed', misgivings become important.

All I'm ultimately saying is that, as ever, she has a case and it's - my writing this - mostly in the interest of representing opinions.

I really need work to pick up...

Well, you've kind of called me out. Time for me to bring in my refutation of the whole "she wins the states that matter" nonsense. Yes, yes, I know, he'll just complain that by looking at actual evidence we're missing the point which is to wave our arms and hope people listen, but let's just quietly hope.

I'm going to make another point about my last post.

It questions why some candidates pulled their name off the ballot for Michigan and says that the reason is that they feared keeping thier name on would harm their chances for the early primaries - that since NH and Iowa were angry at Michigan's stunt, it might be politically advantageous to pull their name off to show their support for these two state's position.This is a stretch. Michigan was still after Iowa and NH. I don't know about NH, but folks in Iowa are barely aware that Michigan even exists - there's no way their primary situation would have influenced the Iowa caucus in any way whatsoever.

This is a stretch. Michigan was still after Iowa and NH. I don't know about NH, but folks in Iowa are barely aware that Michigan even exists - there's no way their primary situation would have influenced the Iowa caucus in any way whatsoever.

Yes, but they pulled out before all.

From the linked article:

Why would the other campaigns drop out of a major battleground state less than three months before the voting is to begin?

One big reason is the pressure on these candidates from Iowa and New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent South Carolina and Nevada, which are furious with Michigan (and Florida) for muscling into the early primary lineup in violation of the rules. Michigan has been seething for years that little Iowa and New Hampshire have had such a big role in shaping the nominations, saying they aren’t representative of the rest of the country.

This is a stretch. Michigan was still after Iowa and NH. I don't know about NH, but folks in Iowa are barely aware that Michigan even exists - there's no way their primary situation would have influenced the Iowa caucus in any way whatsoever.

The reasoning in that can be seen in Guiliani's failed strategy. With Florida and Michigan's big delegate total it is technically feesible for candidates to do what essentially what Guiliani and arguably what Clinton has done, fly over small states and run big states where name recognition and barnstormer 'tarmac' campaigning can get you a larger delegate lead than the the tedious delegate by delegate acquisition that is necessary in small states. Without their 'first in the nation' status the states allowed to move before Super Tuesday would be all but ignored. This was a move to give small but still crucial states more of a voice. Michigan and Florida wanted all the marbles.

Ron Paul is quitting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512959

"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is hinting to supporters that he is ending his long-shot campaign for the presidency."

CToaN's post as rebuttal to mine actually serves to highlight this:

...but the party chairs in the four small front-of-the-pack states pressured the candidates into signing a pledge not to campaign in the two outlaw primaries.

Then, the quote repeated in that post as proof of Senator Clinton's position is simply the official statement made on signing the pledge:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

Very terse compared to the others.

At that time, Senator Clinton was busy building a coalition of senior party members, where she was assuming the nomination, it simply wasn't worth the fight to press the point in this battle, where such a drastic punishment was meted out:

Mark Brewer, the Michigan party chairman, radiates optimism that his state will get its delegates back. "In the past when such penalties have been imposed on states that have gone early, they have always been lifted," he said in an interview. "But beyond that, the political reality is that Michigan is a targeted battleground state ... It would be political suicide for the Democratic nominee to refuse to seat us and hope to win Michigan in November."

So signing that pledge, which is where the one statement on it came from her camp, an especially short statement, would seem the politically correct thing to do.

As was the case for Senator Edwards and Obama to pull their name from the ballot, it was the politically correct thing for them to do, which Senator Clinton did not do.

Why?

She did not want to be seen as disenfranchising the voters of a key state under pressure from NH and Iowa to do so, partly because she felt that she'd win anyway - now that it's important...

Again, the point is that people are slamming Senator Clinton for things that every candidate does.

Let's continue to talk about the swing states.

Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

Obama States:
State(Electoral votes) - 2004-2000-1996-1992
Alabama(9)-RRRR
Alaska(3)-RRDR
Colorado(9)-RRRD
Connecticut(7)-DDDD
D.C.(3) - DDDD
Deleware(3)-DDDD
Georgia(15)-RRRD
Hawaii(4) - DDDD
Idaho(4)-RRRR
Illinois(21)-DDDD
Iowa(7)-RDDD
Kansas(6)-RRRR
Lousiana(9)-RRDD
Maine(4)-DDDD
Maryland(10) - DDDD
Minnesota(10)-DDDD
Missouri(11)-RRDD
Nebraska(5)-RRRR
North Dakota(3)-RRRR
South Carolina(8)-RRRR
Utah(5)-RRRR
Vermont(3)-DDDD
Virgina(13) - RRRR
Washington(11)-DDDD
Wisconsin(10) - DDDD

In other words he has a potential 205 electoral votes in the states he won.

Of them,
53 are virtually guaranteed Republican
86 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
54 are states he could swing.



Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR
Arkansas(6)-RRDD
California(55)-DDDD
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD
Nevada(5)-RRDD
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD
New Jersey(15)-DDDD
New Mexico(5)-RDDD
New York(31)-DDDD
Ohio(20)-RRDD
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR
Rhode Island(4)-DDDD
Tennessee(11)-RRDD
Texas(34)-RRRR


In other words she has a potential 219 electoral votes in the states she won.

Of them,
41 are virtually guaranteed Republican
117 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
61 are states she could swing.

So, even though I don't agree with your premise, CH, Clinton is only bring 52 electoral votes from swing states to the table. Obama is bringing 54. Unless you're now going to argue that states that have gone at least once to each party in the last 4 elections aren't swing states.


A little more analysis -
Clinton's states:
Oklahoma, Texas - Went sharply Republican in the past four elections. They are not likely states to budge.
The democrat states went pretty heavily Democrat so they aren't likely to swing either.

Obama's states:
Minnesota was a close race. Wisconsin was as close as they come as well.

In other words, the only states that really seem to matter if we're looking at who is likely to swing states Democrat, we have to look at the states that have gone at least once to both parties in the last few elections. CH suggested we look at such things, and in those contests, Clinton (after Ohio) has a slight lead. And if you add in Minnesota, which clearly could be swung to the Republican side considering how close that contest was, you have to give this one to Obama. Minnesota alone is 10 electoral votes. That's pretty sizeable. Add in Wisconsin for 10 and you've got 13 more up for grabs votes in states Obama won.

And we'll just update this again to really address everything that goes into this.

*The bolding represents states won by 18% or more. As you can see Obama ONLY has 4 contests that weren't a route. Clinton had 3 routes in all of her victories. Frankly, anything less than a route cannot be used to suggest that Obama couldn't carry a state just because Clinton won it or vice versa.

No, Obama is mostly winning red states and Clinton is mostly winning blue states.
But look at the red states (from last election) that Hillary won: Nevada (21K), Arizona (211K), New Mexico (6K), Texas (blowout), Oklahoma (blowout), Arkansas (102K) but Clinton's to win, Tennessee (blowout), and Ohio (119K).

In brackets is the number of votes that Bush beat Kerry by.

Logically, Clinton would have a realistic shot at Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Florida for a total of 57 electoral votes. Also, Clinton, who was first Lady of Arkansas, could bring back Arkansas, which was blue for Bill Clinton's two terms.

Try comparing these two maps:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

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

By the way, Obama wins many of the states he wins with huge numbers. (Over 60% of the vote.)
Mostly the red states that are going to stay red. I don't have time to do the breakdown right now.

The only state Clinton has won by that kind of margin is Arkansas, which is pretty clearly red.
Which I believe will go to Clinton.

Ron Paul is quitting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512959

"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is hinting to supporters that he is ending his long-shot campaign for the presidency."

He was quit for a while, he just didn't know it.

But look at the red states (from last election) that Hillary won: Nevada (21K), Arizona (211K), New Mexico (6K), Texas (blowout), Oklahoma (blowout), Arkansas (102K) but Clinton's to win, Tennessee (blowout), and Ohio (119K).


In brackets is the number of votes that Bush beat Kerry by.

Logically, Clinton would have a realistic shot at Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Florida for a total of 57 electoral votes. Also, Clinton, who was first Lady of Arkansas, could bring back Arkansas, which was blue for Bill Clinton's two terms.
Seriously, we can't say anything about Florida until Obama actually campaigns there.

He was quit for a while, he just didn't know it.

He quit but he's still going to campaign.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/paul-admits-conventional-defeat/

But look at the red states (from last election) that Hillary won: Nevada (21K), Arizona (211K), New Mexico (6K), Texas (blowout), Oklahoma (blowout), Arkansas (102K) but Clinton's to win, Tennessee (blowout), and Ohio (119K).

In brackets is the number of votes that Bush beat Kerry by.

Logically, Clinton would have a realistic shot at Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Florida for a total of 57 electoral votes. Also, Clinton, who was first Lady of Arkansas, could bring back Arkansas, which was blue for Bill Clinton's two terms.

Try comparing these two maps:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

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


Mostly the red states that are going to stay red. I don't have time to do the breakdown right now.


Which I believe will go to Clinton.

And what do you know. We're back to the ol' only Hillary can win these states argument, and, once again, what do you know? Suddenly, he's too busy to support his arguments.

I did the breakdown for you. Obama has blown out Clinton in all but 4 of the states he won. Clinton has only had a blowout 3 times. In other words, if you want to pretend states are going to only go for Clinton, then you'd think she'd have blown out Obama in them. However, she's hardly done it, ever.

Seriously, we can't say anything about Florida until Obama actually campaigns there.

Florida was wrongly disenfranchised by Dean for having its primaries in January. Now Dean is telling them to do over and its in discussion but Obama is saying he'll continue to oppose seating them unless their delegates are automatically split 50 50 in direct contravention of the will of the people of Florida who, along with Michigan, voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. So Obama supports disenfranchising anyone who does'nt support him.

Try comparing these two maps:
You mean these ones, that are backed up by poll data?
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

Of course, that isn't the whole picture. You have to compare margins too to see who has the stronger lead.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/145023/7178/225/470640

I did the breakdown for you. Obama has blown out Clinton in all but 4 of the states he won. Clinton has only had a blowout 3 times. In other words, if you want to pretend states are going to only go for Clinton, then you'd think she'd have blown out Obama in them. However, she's hardly done it, ever.

If the Dems used the same system as the Reps, they'd have a candidate already.

Let's continue to talk about the swing states.

Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

Obama States:
State(Electoral votes) - 2004-2000-1996-1992
Alabama(9)-RRRR
Alaska(3)-RRDR
Colorado(9)-RRRD
Connecticut(7)-DDDD
D.C.(3) - DDDD
Deleware(3)-DDDD
Georgia(15)-RRRD
Hawaii(4) - DDDD
Idaho(4)-RRRR
Illinois(21)-DDDD
Iowa(7)-RDDD
Kansas(6)-RRRR
Lousiana(9)-RRDD
Maine(4)-DDDD
Maryland(10) - DDDD
Minnesota(10)-DDDD
Missouri(11)-RRDD
Nebraska(5)-RRRR
North Dakota(3)-RRRR
South Carolina(8)-RRRR
Utah(5)-RRRR
Vermont(3)-DDDD
Virgina(13) - RRRR
Washington(11)-DDDD
Wisconsin(10) - DDDD

In other words he has a potential 205 electoral votes in the states he won.

Of them,
53 are virtually guaranteed Republican
86 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
54 are states he could swing.



Clinton States:
Arizona(10)-RRDR
Arkansas(6)-RRDD
California(55)-DDDD
Massachussetts(12)-DDDD
Nevada(5)-RRDD
New Hampshire(4)-DRDD
New Jersey(15)-DDDD
New Mexico(5)-RDDD
New York(31)-DDDD
Ohio(20)-RRDD
Oklahoma(7)-RRRR
Rhode Island(4)-DDDD
Tennessee(11)-RRDD
Texas(34)-RRRR


In other words she has a potential 219 electoral votes in the states she won.

Of them,
41 are virtually guaranteed Republican
117 are virtually guaranteed Democrat
61 are states she could swing.

So, even though I don't agree with your premise, CH, Clinton is only bring 52 electoral votes from swing states to the table. Obama is bringing 54. Unless you're now going to argue that states that have gone at least once to each party in the last 4 elections aren't swing states.


A little more analysis -
Clinton's states:
Oklahoma, Texas - Went sharply Republican in the past four elections. They are not likely states to budge.
The democrat states went pretty heavily Democrat so they aren't likely to swing either.

Obama's states:
Minnesota was a close race. Wisconsin was as close as they come as well.

In other words, the only states that really seem to matter if we're looking at who is likely to swing states Democrat, we have to look at the states that have gone at least once to both parties in the last few elections. CH suggested we look at such things, and in those contests, Clinton (after Ohio) has a slight lead. And if you add in Minnesota, which clearly could be swung to the Republican side considering how close that contest was, you have to give this one to Obama. Minnesota alone is 10 electoral votes. That's pretty sizeable. Add in Wisconsin for 10 and you've got 13 more up for grabs votes in states Obama won.

And we'll just update this again to really address everything that goes into this.

*The bolding represents states won by 18% or more. As you can see Obama ONLY has 4 contests that weren't a route. Clinton had 3 routes in all of her victories. Frankly, anything less than a route cannot be used to suggest that Obama couldn't carry a state just because Clinton won it or vice versa.



Predictably he 'doesn't have time for us' once again...ah well...

Anyway, I'm becoming more convinced by this (I'll just copy paste it from an earlier post of mine instead of re-wording myself again)
I'm not saying that it's a guarantee that Obama can convert that into a win, I'm saying it's an edge. And when you're trying to convince me that someone can win, you do a lot better job of pointing to a structure than conceding defeat to nearly half the country before even starting the fight.
This Monty Halling vote totals on the last few elections line of thought, conceeding half the nation before the fight even begins, I think this is an old way of thinking, and I think we're seeing that in the failure of Guiliani and how a front runner who had a 20% lead and an almost 10 year build up for this presidency bid playing catch up to someone who came on the national scene two years ago.

So I agree, if Clinton is the candidate fussing over the results of the last couple elections and the microble shifts is relevant. It's relevant because it's the same game. But as outlined earlier, McCain in Obama would be facing someone who is amassing record amounts in the war chest and has well organized infrastructure in 40-45, maybe 50 states where he has campaigned already. McCain will have to play the 'states that matter' game, and he'll be forced to not necessarily choose states that have the EC votes but where Republican senate and House seats are vulnerable. That's frankly a more compelling possibility than "states will only vote for the candidate they voted for in the primary" nonsense.

I mean, how many of those states that Clinton won were also won by McCain? Doesn't the logic also dictate that they will go for McCain?

I say it again, you're not going to impress me with a candidate that cedes defeat in half of the country before the race even starts.

You mean these ones, that are backed up by poll data?
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

Of course, that isn't the whole picture. You have to compare margins too to see who has the stronger lead.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/145023/7178/225/470640

Currently, the evidence shows them both winning Ohio? Impossible. How could Obama win in the general election in Ohio? He lost the primary. And we all know primaries dictate the outcome of the general election.

You cannot compare primary/caucus support to support in the general election, as Barr already noted.
Hehehe. I guess it's time to pull out some planks and build that cross, eh?

So really, when you work the numbers, there's only three ways for the Dem primaries to play out:

1. Either Clinton or Obama goes on a winning streak of epic proportions, with significant victories, and wrap up enough pledged delegates to obtain the nomination before the convention...

...obviously highly unlikely at this point, barring a total meltdown by one of the candidates.

2. Since the races will be close, and the numbers clearly indicate that this is in Obama's favor, Clinton decides to drop out before the convention.

...again, highly unlikely.

3. Superdelegates decide the matter at the convention.

Even if Clinton starts a winning streak, it would have to be by large margins of victory to prevent Obama from having more states, more pledged delegates, and more of the popular vote going into the convention.

If the Superdelgates choose Clinton despite her being behind in all three methods of measurement, I would suggest people stay the fuck away from Denver, as it won't be pretty.


...if Obama wins Wyoming and Mississippi (which he almost certainly will), I think Clinton ought to drop out. It's the only way that this doesn't drag out for months, and hurt the Democratic party's chances of gaining the White House.

Of course, that won't happen...thanks again Ohio. :rolleyes:

This Monty Halling vote totals on the last few elections line of thought, conceeding half the nation before the fight even begins, I think this is an old way of thinking, and I think we're seeing that in the failure of Guiliani and how a front runner who had a 20% lead and an almost 10 year build up for this presidency bid playing catch up to someone who came on the national scene two years ago.

A couple of points first - annoyingly, I'd grabbed the 1000th post in this thread and now that the Moderators have inserted other threads, damn Jocabia takes it by default - I feel like Al Gore.

Second, could we not quote the entirety of these figures, it's just that huge quotes bother me, selfish I know but a humble request all the same.

So...

I agree, I think something we've seen in this election is that front-runner status counts for a lot - it speaks to the importance placed by Michigan and Florida in their complaints, which were suck in the first place. Imagine, Florida had actually been invited to bid for an early place, didn't and then petulantly went ahead of its own accord.

By the by a bit, the point is that it appears suicidal not to campaign hard for the early states for momentum, an enormously costly mistake by Rudy G - although I think that a little scrutiny blew his chances despite - as well as one for Senator Clinton.

This comes to the second point, that voters are surely swayed by campaign ads and leaflets - where people have not campaigned, they have not won the votes - people are generally undecided and seem to vote on the last good point made, hence NAFTA became important - the actual issues don't matter, you have to score the last point and you've a good chance of gaining the undecideds.

What does this mean?

Well, I think the biggest point in Senator Obama's favour is that he's put together a very well organized campaign, raised millions of the average voter - so he can campaign early, hard and keep going through the elections - and doesn't have half as many people who would simply not vote for him out of spite. No matter the primary state results, if Senator Clinton takes the nomination in a way deemed unfair, especially by the sizeable black vote, I just think it hampers her chances.

I think the Angry White Man who won't vote for Senator Obama will certainly not vote for Senator Clinton so, really, it's hard to make a case for her overall. I think she doesn't gain votes that any Democrat wouldn't have and she loses votes that they would have purely out of overall spite.

My wavering right now is on whether she should pull out because I just don't see her beating Senator McCain, regardless of what polls are saying now - a black man and a woman simply throw out accuracy due to the newness of the concept.

A couple of points first - annoyingly, I'd grabbed the 1000th post in this thread and now that the Moderators have inserted other threads, damn Jocabia takes it by default - I feel like Al Gore.

I have 5 times as many posts as you and 15% of the posts in the thread. I won the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

Second, could we not quote the entirety of these figures, it's just that huge quotes bother me, selfish I know but a humble request all the same.

Yes, especially since I screwed up and had to fix my post, and his quoting keeps my mistakes for eternity or until the jolt servers melt.

A couple of points first - annoyingly, I'd grabbed the 1000th post in this thread and now that the Moderators have inserted other threads, damn Jocabia takes it by default - I feel like Al Gore.

Second, could we not quote the entirety of these figures, it's just that huge quotes bother me, selfish I know but a humble request all the same.
Sorry, it's kind of a little game with CH since he ignores those posts that contain research that counters his FFHA claims, so occasionally you quote them making the silence all the more deafening.

So...

I agree, I think something we've seen in this election is that front-runner status counts for a lot - it speaks to the importance placed by Michigan and Florida in their complaints, which were suck in the first place. Imagine, Florida had actually been invited to bid for an early place, didn't and then petulantly went ahead of its own accord.

By the by a bit, the point is that it appears suicidal not to campaign hard for the early states for momentum, an enormously costly mistake by Rudy G - although I think that a little scrutiny blew his chances despite - as well as one for Senator Clinton.

This comes to the second point, that voters are surely swayed by campaign ads and leaflets - where people have not campaigned, they have not won the votes - people are generally undecided and seem to vote on the last good point made, hence NAFTA became important - the actual issues don't matter, you have to score the last point and you've a good chance of gaining the indecideds.

What does this mean?

Well, I think the biggest point in Senator Obama's favour is that he's put together a very well organized campaign, raised millions of the average voter and doesn't have half as many people who would simply not vote for him out of spite. No matter the primary state results, if Senator Clinton takes the nomination in a way deemed unfair, especially by the sizeable black vote, I just think it hampers her chances.

I think the Angry White Man who won't vote for Senator Obama will certainly not vote for Senator Clinton so, really, it's hard to make a case for her overall. I think she doesn't gain votes that any Democrat wouldn't have and she loses votes that they would have purely out of overall spite.

My wavering right now is on whether she should pull out because I just don't see her beating Senator McCain, regardless of what polls are saying now - a black man and a woman simply throw out accuracy due to the newness of the concept.

I've had that frustration for a few pages (the goldfish factor). While Obama has been teflon, even teflon isn't immune to whatever you can throw up in the last 72 hours because of the aforementioned Goldfish Factor and the Least Probability Factor, that people will accept something that has at least a measure of plausibility as long as it's repeated often enough in a short period of time. Obama is supposed to have a glass jaw now because he couldn't fling off last second attacks despite the fact that up until then no one could get anything to stick.

I've wandered around a bit here...my fault for trying to post while watching The Colbert Report...

I have 5 times as many posts as you and 15% of the posts in the thread. I won the popular vote AND the electoral vote.



Yes, especially since I screwed up and had to fix my post, and his quoting keeps my mistakes for eternity or until the jolt servers melt.

Haha! Your shame is now saved for all eternity, moo haha!!!

Florida was wrongly disenfranchised by Dean for having its primaries in January. Now Dean is telling them to do over and its in discussion but Obama is saying he'll continue to oppose seating them unless their delegates are automatically split 50 50 in direct contravention of the will of the people of Florida who, along with Michigan, voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. So Obama supports disenfranchising anyone who does'nt support him.

I don't suppose you're willing to give a source for that accusation?

Haha! Your shame is now saved for all eternity, moo haha!!!

You are trying so hard to best me for most posts. This is MY thread.

Bah, I'm off to grow a beard.

Good plan. Just an FYI though: while a beard can store food for secret snacking later on, butter is not one of the recommended storage items.

Bah, I'm off to grow a beard.

And get fatter. But, hey, I heard that sour grapes make great post-Nobel wine.

Florida was wrongly disenfranchised by Dean for having its primaries in January. Now Dean is telling them to do over and its in discussion but Obama is saying he'll continue to oppose seating them unless their delegates are automatically split 50 50 in direct contravention of the will of the people of Florida who, along with Michigan, voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. So Obama supports disenfranchising anyone who does'nt support him.

Seriously, do you just string together random conspiracies? Provide a link for your bs.

I have 5 times as many posts as you and 15% of the posts in the thread. I won the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

Bah, I'm off to grow a beard.

Bah, I'm off to grow a beard.

My beard is already more immense than you can hope to achieve, such is its greatness that it now owns the definition 'beard' and all other chin based facial hair growths must find a new term.





For whatever reason, overstating my beard amuses me. But it is pretty badass, no matter what my girlfriend says...

And get fatter. But, hey, I heard that sour grapes make great post-Nobel wine.

My shiny Oscar laughs at your so-called 'Presidency' - Hail to the Thief, yes, that's what they're muttering in the streets.

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

On average, its like each political donation was 200 USD.

He raised a ton of money, but he needs to save it for the nomination when he wins the nominee.

Ron Paul is quitting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512959

"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is hinting to supporters that he is ending his long-shot campaign for the presidency."

Finally! Ron Pual the nut is out of the race for good.

You mean these ones, that are backed up by poll data?
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

Of course, that isn't the whole picture. You have to compare margins too to see who has the stronger lead.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/145023/7178/225/470640
Of course, polls have been so accurate over the past few months. Not!!

Also, it is interesting if you use those polls as an example, it bears out my thoughts on the red states staying red for McCain except for Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Of those 3, Hillary won Nevada and New Mexico against Obama. The other red state that this poll gives to Obama (Virginia) basically shows McCain and Obama in a dead heat. If everything stayed as per the poll, except Virginia stayed red, then McCain would beat Obama 271 to 267.

Also of note, Obama would only just hold on to Michigan by 1%.

The Clinton example, upholds some of my points, whereby she would win Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico. It is also interesting that this poll shows Tennessee in a dead heat but they gave it to McCain. Also interesting is that it shows McCain winning Michigan by 2%. The blue states are certainly more solidly behind Clinton than Obama. It also shows clinton picking up West Virginia where Obama would lose it.

If anything, these two surveys show that Clinton is stronger than Obama and that her numbers are more solid in the necessary areas.

I think I just said a lot about polls that really are not reliable.

Finally! Ron Pual the nut is out of the race for good.

Oh dear. Now we'll have to deal with his supporters taking to the streets and committing mass suicide.

I see Hillary winning Ohio, and Florida. Something that Kerry couldn't do, and Obama might not do.

So, you're a fortune teller now?

Ron Paul is quitting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512959

"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is hinting to supporters that he is ending his long-shot campaign for the presidency."

You mean he's just now figuring out that he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination? So much for him being even remotely intelligent.

Florida was wrongly disenfranchised by Dean for having its primaries in January. Now Dean is telling them to do over and its in discussion but Obama is saying he'll continue to oppose seating them unless their delegates are automatically split 50 50 in direct contravention of the will of the people of Florida who, along with Michigan, voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. So Obama supports disenfranchising anyone who does'nt support him.

Care to provide some proof of that claim?

So, you're a fortune teller now?
It's sort of a binary proposition. Either Hilary will win or Obama will.

It's sort of a binary proposition. Either Hilary will win or Obama will.

Except in CH's world, Hillary will win or the Democrats lose.

a separate study also found that there was a subset of overvotes with absolutely unquestionably clear voter intent, and gore won if you include those too.

Except that you cannot include over votes in an election tally.

...if Obama wins Wyoming and Mississippi (which he almost certainly will), I think Clinton ought to drop out. It's the only way that this doesn't drag out for months, and hurt the Democratic party's chances of gaining the White House.
I haven't seen a single head-to-head poll for Mississippi, and the SurveryUSA bit had them both take about the same percentage VS McCain there.

This will probably keep going until the convention.

He will almost certainly win Wyoming tomorrow and pick up a few delegates there. Mississippi will probably not give much of a delegate margin Tuesday.

She won't concede because she's already looking at Pennsylvania. She will probably win Pennsylvania, but Obama will still have a lead in pledged delegates, which mean that we move on to the May states.

Obama will pick up North Carolina and Indiana by substantial margins on the 6th, which will more than cancel out Pennsylvania.

She will probably then win West Virginia the next week on the 13th.

A week later, Oregon and Kentucky will go. I'd be amazed if the two of them put together will add up to much of a net gain or loss.

Then, in June, Obama will pick up some delegates from South Dakota, Montana, and Puerto Rico, but all of those being small states, and already counted as being in Obama's pocket, that won't change anything, so it will go to the convention. If Michigan caucuses and Florida re-primaries, they might just cancel out Obama's gains from May.

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.

it says might, but that is just caution, linked to the assumption that their eyesight, way of counting, etc. would probably but not certainly match that of other people who would have done the count using the same standards. the actual results of the study found that statewide, using either the already accepted county-by-county standards, or just checking the scantrons again, or including some of the clearest undervotes would have resulted in gore wins. a separate study also found that there was a subset of overvotes with absolutely unquestionably clear voter intent, and gore won if you include those too.

This is a stretch. Michigan was still after Iowa and NH. I don't know about NH, but folks in Iowa are barely aware that Michigan even exists - there's no way their primary situation would have influenced the Iowa caucus in any way whatsoever.
Michigan is the reason why Iowa and New Hampshire rescheduled themselves so absurdly early.

If the entire state was recounted consistently according to any of the guidelines used for recounting, Gore won. That was the final conclusion whether or not you used the guidelines that counted or discarded overvotes.

Overvote is voting for more than one candidate. Why should those votes count? Does not matter if there is clear intention or not. If you vote for two different presidential candidates then your vote does not nor should it count.

Besides that, each county was counting ballots differently anyways which is why the Supreme Court put a stop to it.

Except that you cannot include over votes in an election tally.
If the entire state was recounted consistently according to any of the guidelines used for recounting, Gore won. That was the final conclusion whether or not you used the guidelines that counted or discarded overvotes.

You all want to argue the past again take it to anther thread. Done with the 2000 and 2004, more of the 2008.I WAS on another thread, actually; it was forcibly dragged here.

And thank you, Free Soviets, for confirming that I am not the only person to have seen that report. Regardless of any issue about how officials would have counted things if, theoretically, the recount had continued, my basic point is that, as a matter of plain fact, there were more people in Florida who went to the polls for Gore, and the margin was not actually even all that small.

Overvote is voting for more than one candidate. Why should those votes count? Does not matter if there is clear intention or not. If you vote for two different presidential candidates then your vote does not nor should it count.

the overvotes in question were on the scantrons where people filled in the bubble for gore and also wrote in gore on the write-in line.

Besides that, each county was counting ballots differently anyways which is why the Supreme Court put a stop to it.

but the point is that either the traditional county-by-county methods or any of the most reasonable consistent standards resulted in gore winning.

the overvotes in question were on the scantrons where people filled in the bubble for gore and also wrote in gore on the write-in line.

Well in that case..there votes still do not count for they still voted twice. That's illegal.

but the point is that either the traditional county-by-county methods or any of the most reasonable consistent standards resulted in gore winning.

The press disagrees.

Well in that case..there votes still do not count for they still voted twice. That's illegal.

The press disagrees.
Actually, the press were pretty much the ones getting folks in there to do the eventual full recount.

It didn't make headlines at the time, since it was about a year later, but the official press statements quietly said exactly what I said above, down around the third or fourth paragraph.

Wow, my calander must be way off, because it says we're in the year 2008, not 2000.


Either that or I can time travel...

Wow, my calander must be way off, because it says we're in the year 2008, not 2000.


Either that or I can time travel...

It's the latter ;)

Of course, polls have been so accurate over the past few months. Not!!

Also, it is interesting if you use those polls as an example, it bears out my thoughts on the red states staying red for McCain except for Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Of those 3, Hillary won Nevada and New Mexico against Obama. The other red state that this poll gives to Obama (Virginia) basically shows McCain and Obama in a dead heat. If everything stayed as per the poll, except Virginia stayed red, then McCain would beat Obama 271 to 267.

Also of note, Obama would only just hold on to Michigan by 1%.

The Clinton example, upholds some of my points, whereby she would win Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico. It is also interesting that this poll shows Tennessee in a dead heat but they gave it to McCain. Also interesting is that it shows McCain winning Michigan by 2%. The blue states are certainly more solidly behind Clinton than Obama. It also shows clinton picking up West Virginia where Obama would lose it.

If anything, these two surveys show that Clinton is stronger than Obama and that her numbers are more solid in the necessary areas.

I think I just said a lot about polls that really are not reliable.
Man alive, talk about seeing what you want to see. She's also barely holding on to Pennsylvania and New Mexico (two of your 'key' states) which would also tip her into loss territory. But close states will only turn on Obama, eh? Nice.

And the polls have been inaccurate this far out. Obama has shown a fairly consistent ability to close large gaps over time and out perform leads throughout this campaign.

And you trot out that old chestnut again of Clinton winning states in a primary as if it means that the state will only vote for the person who they voted for in the primary. And you use Nevada and New Mexico of all states, two of the closest contests in the race so far. Nevada was so close, in fact, that the delegate total ended up favoring Obama. Doesn't really make the strongest case for you.

This ignores yet again that Obama has a strong infrastructure in all of these states that he's already built, he's campaigned in everyone of these states and has that infrastructure to build on and the war chest to keep it alive forcing McCain to spot battle while Obama can campaign all fifty with relative ease.

Once again, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that your horse is a winner when you start off conceding half the country before the race even starts.

I WAS on another thread, actually; it was forcibly dragged here.
It was a threadjack there, too.

Did anyone see SuperDelegate Tom Daschle on The Daily Show? He's all for Obama but says he will vote according to the will of the voters/pledged delegate count and said that from talking to the other SuperDelegates, it's basically a consensus. Good news really.

it says might, but that is just caution, linked to the assumption that their eyesight, way of counting, etc. would probably but not certainly match that of other people who would have done the count using the same standards. the actual results of the study found that statewide, using either the already accepted county-by-county standards, or just checking the scantrons again, or including some of the clearest undervotes would have resulted in gore wins. a separate study also found that there was a subset of overvotes with absolutely unquestionably clear voter intent, and gore won if you include those too.

Source?

In any case, both Gov. Crist and Sen. Nelson in FL are for a re-do of their state's primary. That could be big for Hillary, especially if the polls continue togo her way. She's picked up 11 points in PA just since the 4th. I wouldn't expect gains like that everywhere, but it could add up in the long run. It's a long way until June.

Clinton is usually ahead in a state at first. It's a name recognition thing. Once Obama has time to campaign there, though, he pretty much always closes the gap.

Also, a jump in the polls just after a win isn't unusual in the least. Obama was up by 10 points or more in New Hampshire after Iowa, and we know how that one turned out.

I actually would expect that Hillary will get less delegates in FL and MI on a redo - hence the reason that she is so adamantly against it. She wants them to be counted as is, because that favors her.

No question the media loves a horserace. No question she'll probably be trailing in pledged delegates going into the convention. I'm saying there's the possibility that she comes out ahead, that's all. I doubt the Clintons or their allies would think they were destroying the party by tipping the balance in her favor, and I don't think the average Democrat is going to stay home in November, even if they suspect a corrupt bargain gave her the nomination. It gets awfully noisy in the Beltway echo-chamber, and the supposed will of the people could be drowned out quickly.

The average Democrat? Probably not.

But what about all the Independents and new voters who have come out for this primary? Will they be willing to continue supporting a Democrat nominee if such a bargain is made?

Personally, I'd be as likely as not to vote for a different party's nominee if that happened.

Of course, polls have been so accurate over the past few months. Not!!

Also, it is interesting if you use those polls as an example, it bears out my thoughts on the red states staying red for McCain except for Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Of those 3, Hillary won Nevada and New Mexico against Obama. The other red state that this poll gives to Obama (Virginia) basically shows McCain and Obama in a dead heat. If everything stayed as per the poll, except Virginia stayed red, then McCain would beat Obama 271 to 267.

Also of note, Obama would only just hold on to Michigan by 1%.

The Clinton example, upholds some of my points, whereby she would win Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico. It is also interesting that this poll shows Tennessee in a dead heat but they gave it to McCain. Also interesting is that it shows McCain winning Michigan by 2%. The blue states are certainly more solidly behind Clinton than Obama. It also shows clinton picking up West Virginia where Obama would lose it.

If anything, these two surveys show that Clinton is stronger than Obama and that her numbers are more solid in the necessary areas.

I think I just said a lot about polls that really are not reliable.

I seriously laughed at this one? You're killing me. They have Obama outperforming Hillary in nearly every state and in the overall. You latched onto a couple of states where Hillary outperformed and said, see?

Seriously, your claims are purely and intentionally ignoring as much evidence as necessary to support Hillary being more electable. Do you really think the rest of us are going to be so willing to throw out the hard evidence? The fact is that Hillary told more than half the country they don't count. The fact is that Hillary does not have the infrastructure to compete in those states, no McCain. The fact is that Hillary is frequently all kinds of states, voters and various groups that they do not matter to her. The fact is that Hillary is "vetted" because she has a plethora of skeletons in her closet. The fact is that Hillary is thoroughly disliked by about 40% of the country.

Personally, I think Hillary would still win it, but you have to seriously ignore the facts in order to claim she's more electable than Obama. And you've been proving this for a month by being incapable of incorporating even reasonable evidence into your claims.

No, that is not the argument I am making.


What exactly is the "new" Clinton arguement that you refer to?


My point goes back to the red blue arguement. Obama is winning many red states that I suggest will stay red. Hillary is strong in the swing states, such as Florida and Ohio.


Pennsylvania was a gain for Kerry. It could go red depending on the candidate.


Barely on both counts.


I see Hillary winning Ohio, and Florida. Something that Kerry couldn't do, and Obama might not do.

So what was the argument you were really trying to make? New Clinton argument as in her mailers and her campaign emails she sends out. Yes, I get campaign emails from all of the candidates and both main parties. Obama has won swing states as well. How does this help Hillary more than Obama? All of your information goes on your personal opinion and relies little on fact. I believe we destroyed your ed/blue state argument many pages ago so I'll write it off. Btw, are you ready to admit you were wrong about the whole "new" battlefield thing, and that there are currently "invasions" across the border? Are you prepared to acquiesce to that the other candidates made statements just as hawkish as Obama on Pakistan? and no, I'm not reposting everything for you. I still am holding your queen, but now she's my love-slave.

Except it kind of is, which I also addressed here-






Barrington listed it earlier in the thread, @ page 88 or so.



The old undefended one? Look like it's chestnut night...


At this stage now it's five swing states for Clinton to six swing states for Obama. This argument simply doesn't hold water, not in the line up and not with what I outlined in my more recent post responding to you dredging this argument up again.

Thank you for reposting that. I have a killer headache and didn't want to spend/waste the time for CH.

Source?

http://www2.norc.org/fl/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

If the superdelegates goes against the will of the people, then yes it would be considered cheating and the animosity is not something that the party needs at the moment.

I don't see how it could be cheating. It would be within the rules of the DNC.

I do, however, think it would be a bad idea.

Florida was wrongly disenfranchised by Dean for having its primaries in January. Now Dean is telling them to do over and its in discussion but Obama is saying he'll continue to oppose seating them unless their delegates are automatically split 50 50 in direct contravention of the will of the people of Florida who, along with Michigan, voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. So Obama supports disenfranchising anyone who does'nt support him.

Ok, I'm going to try and refute your "argument" without getting angry with you. I'll make it quite simple.

Considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI the point is irrelevant. Only have one name on the ballot is what happens in 3rd world fascist states. Hardly the time of shining example we'd use for democracy. Florida almost makes sense except there was no campaigning there. It's not a representation of what would happen in a truly contested primary. Finally, I'll end with my other argument about making a deal and then breaking your agreement. Does your word mean nothing when you give it? Also, it makes no sense to shoot yourself in the foot and not vote in the general if you can't abide by the party rules. This is a childish way to look at thinks that lacks maturity.

I don't see how it could be cheating. It would be within the rules of the DNC.

I do, however, think it would be a bad idea.

It's not cheating, but it certainly does go against the spirit that the Democratic Party claims to champion.

I mean, deciding who the candidate will be in a smoke filled backroom with a bunch of party insiders who can be bribed with cash and other incentives to vote one way or the other isn't most people's idea of "fairly elected candidate".

Clinton is usually ahead in a state at first. It's a name recognition thing. Once Obama has time to campaign there, though, he pretty much always closes the gap.

yeah, the general pattern in each state tracks the national pattern:
http://www.pollster.com/USTopzDems600.png

It's not cheating, but it certainly does go against the spirit that the Democratic Party claims to champion.

I mean, deciding who the candidate will be in a smoke filled backroom with a bunch of party insiders who can be bribed with cash and other incentives to vote one way or the other isn't most people's idea of "fairly elected candidate".

According to some super delegates, there is a consensus among them that they will vote the way that the pledged delegates have. They've discussed openely how damaging it would be to do otherwise.

According to some super delegates, there is a consensus among them that they will vote the way that the pledged delegates have. They've discussed openely how damaging it would be to do otherwise.

I believe they should make the superdelegate votes public, so that we know who screwed around.

It was a threadjack there, too.

You beat me to the punch here.

Source?

Jacobia, please don't play into the threadjack. 200 and 2004 is over and there's nothing to be made of them. Especially not in a thread based on this year.

They should be showing us that politics can be just a college of ideas, instead of a warzone. So far, she's shown the latter. Occasionaly, and sadly, Obama has shown some of that too and I really hope that he doesn't end up in the muck too, or I'll not vote for any of them.

I've noticed this too. Even their choice of words displays a very different approach to politics. Obama talks about bringing people from both parties together. Clinton talks about fighting the Republicans.

Huh. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4408408&page=1)

I hadn't heard about this when it happened, probably because I don't read much of The Scotsman and when it did happen we were being innundated with accusations that Obama was giving a nod and a wink to Canada through a surrogate for some reason...but it seems-
The Scotsman newspaper reported Thursday evening that Power had described Clinton as "a monster," then attempted to subsequently make the comment off the record.
Monster does in fact seem harsh. And unnecessary. Apparently Clinton was offended, which is understandable-
In a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign, Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks of New York, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, decried the remarks made in The Scotsman by Power, 37, a Pulitzer-Prize winning professor at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University.

"This is an important test for Senator Obama, " said Lowey. "It's really a test of character … You really wonder how Sen. Obama can have a person like that, as bright as she might be, advising his campaign."

Wasserman Schultz said Power's comments violated the spirit of the campaign run by Obama, who "has talked about politics of hope throughout," since her description of Clinton in the interview "degenerated into negative personal attacks and name-calling," which Wasserman Schultz called "below the belt" and "out of bounds."
Certainly has a case. Obama has said about his campaign-
In December, Obama had said he did "not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally. If I find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired. And I have been absolutely crystal clear about this, and I have been clear about this for a very long time."
However, before Clinton had her conference call (does it seem like a whole lot of what happens in this primary is on conference calls?)-
After the comments received notice, the Obama campaign issued a statement from Power saying "these comments do not reflect my feelings about Senator Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired. I should not have made these comments and I deeply regret them. It is wrong for anyone to pursue this campaign in such negative and personal terms. I apologize to Senator Clinton and to Senator Obama, who has made very clear that these kinds of expressions should have no place in American politics." Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton issued a statement saying that "Obama decries such characterizations, which have no place in this campaign."

But the campaign on Thursday stopped short of firing Power, and she stopped short of resigning.
But by Friday-
Samantha Power, a senior foreign policy adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, resigned Friday morning after calling Sen. Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with a European newspaper.
...
Power's statement came scarcely an hour after congressional supporters of Clinton demanded that Obama fire Power for the remarks.
So, is this too little too late, or a case of caving in? Or, is it a refutation of the notion that Obama after marginal loses this Tuesday is going to dig down negative?

And, doth the lady protest too much? It's not like she hasn't been in this soup before-
Since Obama became a threat to Clinton, various officials and allies of her campaign have made personal attacks against him.

In three instances, the Clinton campaign asked the individuals to step down from the campaign: After New Hampshire state chair Billy Shaheen made a reference to Obama's childhood drug use, and after two Iowa field organizers forwarded e-mails ludicrously claiming that Obama was a sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate.

"When Mr. Shaheen made those comments he was removed from the campaign," Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson pointed out today.
One could argue that she vetted those people without having to have a conference call (whether that's true or not I don't know. It doesn't imply that pressure was applied.) You could argue that forwarding the Manchurian Candidate thing is massive degrees worse than calling someone a monster, but firing is firing, I don't think comparing the level of the offense should reflect on the people who reacted the same in each instance. The long and short of it is when they were innapropriate she canned them (well, asked them to resign, which is the professional world shitcaning.)

However-
But in other instances, the Clinton campaign has not taken any action when an ally has made personal attacks against Obama. When billionaire supporter Bob Johnson, the founder of BET, made an oblique reference to Obama's youthful drug use in a speech, the Clinton campaign in fact originally repeated Johnson's claims that his comments had been misconstrued.

Johnson eventually admitted he had been talking about Obama's past drug use and he apologized to the senator.
But they explain-
When asked about the contradiction, Wolfson said that Johnson "is a supporter of ours, but he is not a senior policy adviser … I don't mean to minimize his importance. But he is not part of the daily campaign life in the way that Samantha Power has been."

And no longer is.
But, I re-quote-
When billionaire supporter Bob Johnson, the founder of BET, made an oblique reference to Obama's youthful drug use in a speech, the Clinton campaign in fact originally repeated Johnson's claims that his comments had been misconstrued.
Even McCain smacked down a supporter who pulled the "Barack Hussien Obama" thing at a rally while still at the rally.

And of course there is this-
Minus the name-calling, Clinton herself has been aggressively attacking Obama in recent weeks as unprepared for the position of commander-in-chief, while Obama has generally attempted to take the high road, dropping suggestions here and there of ways he might confront Clinton but never actually doing so.

Clinton's attacks have caused Democratic officials to worry that Clinton may cause irreparable harm to Obama, who still leads in the Democratic race. The dynamic is also causing many of Obama's supporters to wonder if he can take or throw a punch, and whether he would be prepared for a political fight against GOP nominee John McCain.

So is this a plus, minus or draw? Is how this viewed innevitably going to be seen through the lens of who you support (If Clinton, too little too late, here's a man who has no control over his campaign, if you're an Obama supporter he did what he said he would do and Clinton's throwing rocks from a glass house, and if you're a McCain supporter the more rocks thrown the better)?

My thoughts are that I would rather he had let her go earlier than Friday instead of waiting for a conference call essentially making it win/win for Clinton. He caves and she makes him look bad. It's far too easy to ignore her shattered glass house here. But in his teflon style he doesn't let this get to be too big a deal, action happens within an hour.

Now is this a signal that he'll keep things positive? I hope. I also hope Wyoming is a big win for him tomorrow and we see him remain upbeat and stay with his every state strategy making Pennsylvania even more impossible of a save for Clinton.

Personally, I'd rather see a firing than a resignation on this sort of thing. But a resignation is better than still having someone who violated that rule in the campaign.

I believe they should make the superdelegate votes public, so that we know who screwed around.

Um. Contrary to popular opinion in this thread, the superdelegates are not hiding behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

How can you people stomach eight months plus of election insanity? I mean, seriously.

Ok, I'm going to try and refute your "argument" without getting angry with you. I'll make it quite simple.

Considering Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI the point is irrelevant. Only have one name on the ballot is what happens in 3rd world fascist states. Hardly the time of shining example we'd use for democracy. Florida almost makes sense except there was no campaigning there. It's not a representation of what would happen in a truly contested primary. Finally, I'll end with my other argument about making a deal and then breaking your agreement. Does your word mean nothing when you give it? Also, it makes no sense to shoot yourself in the foot and not vote in the general if you can't abide by the party rules. This is a childish way to look at thinks that lacks maturity.

If I'm a democrat in Florida that feels snubbed by my primary vote not counting, how am I being more childish than the Obama supporters who claim they will campaign/vote against Clinton if she wins the nomination?

I'm not saying tha FL and MI's delgates should be seated, but that hurling mud at voters in those states hardly helps the issue.

BTW, am I the only Obama supporter who thinks this tax return issue is phony gamesmanship?

To me, the idea that Hillary Clinton hasn't been subject to enough scrutiny is rather bizarre.

BTW, am I the only Obama supporter who thinks this tax return issue is phony gamesmanship?

To me, the idea that Hillary Clinton hasn't been subject to enough scrutiny is rather bizarre.
No, you're not. I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be learning from it. I don't need to check the candidates credit, I'm not selling them a car.

How can you people stomach eight months plus of election insanity? I mean, seriously.

I thought part of the whole point of merging all the election threads was that we wouldn't have to listen to furriners whining about the election. :p

So, shoo! :D

How can you people stomach eight months plus of election insanity? I mean, seriously.

its like american football, but even slower and more tedious. also, with even more lawyering and armchair strategerizing.

fucking awesome!

How can you people stomach eight months plus of election insanity? I mean, seriously.
This cycle is the odd one. Politicians can't make it last too long, or we'll realize that "hope for change we can believe in" doesn't mean any more in practical terms than touting all the Presidential experience gained while being a first lady. That, or no one really pays any attention. Maybe it just keeps the reporters from being on the dole.

We're talking about a good year and a half from when the first candidates declared, aren't we?

BTW, am I the only Obama supporter who thinks this tax return issue is phony gamesmanship?

To me, the idea that Hillary Clinton hasn't been subject to enough scrutiny is rather bizarre.

i dont care about her tax returns. im fine with her waiting until she is the party nominee to release them.

This cycle is the odd one. Politicians can't make it last too long, or we'll realize that "hope for change we can believe in" doesn't mean any more in practical terms than touting all the Presidential experience gained while being a first lady.

though when that hope and change has in fact already convinced the fucking fraternal order of police to go along with taping interrogations, there is at least some hint of practical substance lurking there...

Man alive, talk about seeing what you want to see. She's also barely holding on to Pennsylvania and New Mexico (two of your 'key' states) which would also tip her into loss territory. But close states will only turn on Obama, eh? Nice.

And the polls have been inaccurate this far out. Obama has shown a fairly consistent ability to close large gaps over time and out perform leads throughout this campaign.

And you trot out that old chestnut again of Clinton winning states in a primary as if it means that the state will only vote for the person who they voted for in the primary. And you use Nevada and New Mexico of all states, two of the closest contests in the race so far. Nevada was so close, in fact, that the delegate total ended up favoring Obama. Doesn't really make the strongest case for you.

This ignores yet again that Obama has a strong infrastructure in all of these states that he's already built, he's campaigned in everyone of these states and has that infrastructure to build on and the war chest to keep it alive forcing McCain to spot battle while Obama can campaign all fifty with relative ease.

Once again, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that your horse is a winner when you start off conceding half the country before the race even starts.
Again, let's face facts, these polls mean diddly squat, but it does seem to support my claim that Obama will not do as well in overturning the traditional red states.

What also is very interesting is that if you flip through the southern states, Hillary actually fares better against McCain then does Obama. If anyone can reverse the red/blue trend, it will be Hillary, just like Bill did in the 1990's?

From a quick perusal of these matchups, it appears to me that Hillary will score a higher total popular vote.

Obama talks about bringing people from both parties together.
Go figure huh? Obama is supposedly trying to close the two party gap, yet his supporters on this thread for the main part have been dissing Hillary and her supporters. Talk about being at odds with the prime directive.

Again, let's face facts, these polls mean diddly squat, but it does seem to support my claim that Obama will not do as well in overturning the traditional red states.

What also is very interesting is that if you flip through the southern states, Hillary actually fares better against McCain then does Obama. If anyone can reverse the red/blue trend, it will be Hillary, just like Bill did in the 1990's?

From a quick perusal of these matchups, it appears to me that Hillary will score a higher total popular vote.

Wow, not only did you completely dodge all points but then you hallucinated some, too. Classic.

Also, you have to love the dismissal of the polls and then leaning on them to 'prove' your point. Not to mention your point now flailing about...first it's "Oh, Obama is winning red states so it doesn't matter (as if blue states will only vote for Democratic candidates they voted for in the primaries, no matter how slim the margins were)" and "Clinton is winning swing states" even though that is actually more true (as demonstrated) for Obama, now it's polls that don't matter (even though we've demonstrated a clear trend about how the polls have behaved) that show Obama turning more states than Clinton that somehow shows Clinton will turn more states than Obama. You're so knotted up I'm sure who ever can untangle you gets to be king of Asia.

http://www2.norc.org/fl/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

Well, let's drop it here, but feel free to start a thread if you like. It's interesting information, but it's one study and it seems to ignore that recounts are mandatory when it's that close. There was a statewide recount.

Go figure huh? Obama is supposedly trying to close the two party gap, yet his supporters on this thread for the main part have been dissing Hillary and her supporters. Talk about being at odds with the prime directive.

Oh, the irony. Actually, generally his supporters have been defending Obama. Most of us have defended Hillary at times. There are a few who are obviously vitriolic towards Hillary, but none as vitriolic as you've been towards Obama, and they are at least willing to be honest about their vitriol.

The majority of us have participated in numerous threads entirely about Obama. ONE thread has been created to discuss Hillary's policies and the only one who showed up to actually tout Hillary was TCT, who isn't a Hillary supporter. If you'd like to actually support your candidate, it'd be the first time since we've been discussing this. Go ahead, I wanna see it. I started a thread to see this. WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT HILLARY? As I remember your reply to a request to participate was to say that you'd rather attack Obama.

If I'm a democrat in Florida that feels snubbed by my primary vote not counting, how am I being more childish than the Obama supporters who claim they will campaign/vote against Clinton if she wins the nomination?

I'm not saying tha FL and MI's delgates should be seated, but that hurling mud at voters in those states hardly helps the issue.

I think they should be upset. Very upset. People are playing politics and the voters of FL and MI suffer. My family certainly is. I think they need to look at what created the problem. Both parties agreed on a primary schedule and that FL and MI going early would completely overshadow other states that would not otherwise get a voice. The leadership in those states decided they don't have to abide by such rules, rules agreed upon by both parties, and they violated them in a primary designed to tell those same parties who their nominee should be. In other words, the major parties certainly should be permitted to set the rules on a federal level since it's a federal nomination.

As such, the fault here lands pretty squarely on the leadership of the state. Do I think the federal party did enough to find a reasonable outcome? No. But the state leaderships said plainly they simply didn't think they'd actually be punished. So they basically played a game of chicken with the votes of their constituents. I hope there is a re-vote. I hope the candidates fund it (though, they really shouldn't have to) and I hope the leadership in those states are out of a job in their next elections.

BTW, am I the only Obama supporter who thinks this tax return issue is phony gamesmanship?

To me, the idea that Hillary Clinton hasn't been subject to enough scrutiny is rather bizarre.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. But I'll admit I've not really tried to find the point, so I'd be willing to accept that there could be one that's laudible. Until I hear one, however, I'm gotta believe you're correct.

I seriously laughed at this one? You're killing me. They have Obama outperforming Hillary in nearly every state and in the overall. You latched onto a couple of states where Hillary outperformed and said, see?
You obviously are not reading the data accurately? The poll also gave a heavy split (Virginia 17 ECV) to Obama, and took a heavy split (Michigan 17 ECV) away Hillary, along with giving the Tennessee split (11 ECV) to McCain instead of Hillary. Hillary also polled better in most of the South compared to Obama. If you give those two splits to Hillary, she has 304 ECV compared to McCain's 234 ECV.

Seriously, your claims are purely and intentionally ignoring as much evidence as necessary to support Hillary being more electable. Do you really think the rest of us are going to be so willing to throw out the hard evidence?
Take a harder look at the "soft evidence", because that is what it is....soft. given the soft evidence, Hillary looks like the true winner on this suspect poll.

The fact is that Hillary told more than half the country they don't count.
No, that is the story that you are pedalling, along with the rest of the nonsense that you wrote, which is not worth replying to.

You obviously are not reading the data accurately? The poll also gave a heavy split (Virginia 17 ECV) to Obama, and took a heavy split (Michigan 17 ECV) away Hillary, along with giving the Tennessee split (11 ECV) to McCain instead of Hillary. Hillary also polled better in most of the South compared to Obama. If you give those two splits to Hillary, she has 304 ECV compared to McCain's 234 ECV.

Amusing. So you want to give all the states to Hillary that she split? Obama split two. They gave one to him, Virginia, and one to McCain, New Jersey. Keep in mind that these are points differences. Even, doesn't mean exactly even. You're just fudging the numbers. If you want to show that the specific results favor your candidate go ahead. Right now, you're simply making things up.

Hillary came up even by percentage in 2 states -
Michigan - McCain won this by a single vote in the poll. 286-285
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a2dfde8a-3546-4e73-b6e3-1bf8534dd899%20
Tennessee - McCain won this by five. 287-282
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8e86f07b-b4f0-4c7d-846e-ba4f0223f35b%20

The margin of error for the poll is about 4% but the margin of error for numbers you entirely made up is 100%. If you only look at states one of the candidates won by 4% or more, then the picture for Obama only gets better, not worse.

I'm reading the data right. But first I started by reading the data. Now if you want me to read it the "CH is making crap up" way, well, you're talking to the wrong guy.



Take a harder look at the "soft evidence", because that is what it is....soft. given the soft evidence, Hillary looks like the true winner on this suspect poll.

Ha. Unless you're actually reading the results and not your made up nonsense.

And I can see why a poll that conducted interviews of 30,000 people is suspect when you'd prefer to argue with "nuh-uh", but they've got 30,000 more bits of evidence than you have. Debunk their methodology or the poll is the best evidence we have and your lame "Obama can't win" argument flies out the window.


No, that is the story that you are pedalling, along with the rest of the nonsense that you wrote, which is not worth replying to.

She didn't. Why didn't she try to win 12 states? Why did she make statements about how Obama would win in certain states and with certain populations, so there wasn't a point in attempting to win those populations. She wrote of votes and it's killing her candidacy.

But, hey, I'm just the guy ACTUALLY looking at the evidence. Hardly worth replying to.

She didn't. Why didn't she try to win 12 states? Why did she make statements about how Obama would win in certain states and with certain populations, so there wasn't a point in attempting to win those populations. She wrote of votes and it's killing her candidacy.

But, hey, I'm just the guy ACTUALLY looking at the evidence. Hardly worth replying to.

Meh. You've got CH pinned to the mat on the rest of your points, but this "Hillary said those states don't count" BS is, well, bullshit.

Meh. You've got CH pinned to the mat on the rest of your points, but this "Hillary said those states don't count" bs is, well, bullshit.

Well, yes and no. She's conceding these states, or dismissing their results when trying to paint Obama's lead as illusionary. It's linked to things like Bill dismissing South Carolina's win by saying, "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina." While it's not literally saying, "You don't matter" she does actively dismiss wins based on either key Obama voters or wins in 'red states' because those states won't change in the general election. That's tacitly saying that they don't matter. That's in comparison to Obama's 'every state counts' method of campaigning in every state and contesting every demographic-instead of responding to Clinton winning with Hispanics by ignoring that and fluffing his base, he actively campaigns towards them. It's a stark contrast and while it might not be nakedly telling them they don't matter it's not an entirely unfair characterization.

Meh. You've got CH pinned to the mat on the rest of your points, but this "Hillary said those states don't count" BS is, well, bullshit.
I certainly am not pinned to the mat, at least based on this suspect polling. If one looks at the polling in the various States, my points are verified.

Meh. You've got CH pinned to the mat on the rest of your points, but this "Hillary said those states don't count" BS is, well, bullshit.

It really isn't. It's really something that bothers me about the strategy she's employed. She waves off losses as not being really important. And I approve of trying to stay positive and focused, but the whole "yeah, well they didn't really matter anyway" approach is horrendous.

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/13/662535.aspx

What does significant mean to you?

Hillary Clinton: You know, I know that there are three things, when you think about electability. Number one, I've been winning the big states we have to win.

You know, with all due respect, unless there's a tsunami change in America, we're never going to carry Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho. It's just not going to happen. But we have to carry the states that I'm carrying, the primary states, the states that really have to be in the winning Democratic column.

Sure, her way of saying it is less harsh, but it's the same thing. She wins the states that matter, according to her campaign. And what of the "red states". Well, they don't count.

I certainly am not pinned to the mat, at least based on this suspect polling. If one looks at the polling in the various States, my points are verified.

I just calls them as I sees 'em.

It really isn't. It's really something that bothers me about the strategy she's employed. She waves off losses as not being really important. And I approve of trying to stay positive and focused, but the whole "yeah, well they didn't really matter anyway" approach is horrendous.

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/13/662535.aspx

What does significant mean to you?

Hillary Clinton: You know, I know that there are three things, when you think about electability. Number one, I've been winning the big states we have to win.

You know, with all due respect, unless there's a tsunami change in America, we're never going to carry Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho. It's just not going to happen. But we have to carry the states that I'm carrying, the primary states, the states that really have to be in the winning Democratic column.

Sure, her way of saying it is less harsh, but it's the same thing. She wins the states that matter, according to her campaign. And what of the "red states". Well, they don't count.

And what exactly do you expect her campaign's response to losses to be? "Oh, shit, we lost Idaho. Senator Clinton doesn't deserve to be the nominee."

Southern States where Clinton does better against McCain then does Obama:

Alabama:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=29a5700a-95ef-4c9f-accf-df8beb98b04e

And what? Both of them lose by 10%

Arkansas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=32b3487a-6bec-4a4c-a7f4-c57850828cd8

A significant gain for Clinton. No surprise


Florida:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=a15d70fd-c3c6-43b6-9491-4211b8a759ba

Also a significant difference. Again, no surprise. He's never campaigned in FL.

Kansas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=64c1dbf5-5c47-430f-91d0-57248144a938

Again, both lose by about 10%

Kentucky:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=239ba246-9056-42c1-8c70-8721137b2b55

Both lose by more than 10%

Louisiana:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=a6305965-33ef-4453-a603-49173c210da7

Both lose by more than 10%


Mississippi:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=6ae5fbf5-dd41-412c-866d-84737dcf9119

Both lose by more than 10%


Missouri:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=9a499429-a388-4e22-99fb-e668dcc23958

Both of them lose by more than the margin of error.


Oklahoma:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=fbcca567-1b81-49a1-bf09-656cd054004b


Both lose by more than 10%


Tennessee:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=8e86f07b-b4f0-4c7d-846e-ba4f0223f35b

This is another significant one. This is certainly within the margin of error.


West Virginia:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=a8387b97-af37-4abb-8240-b9968105c78c

This is also significant.



Dude, you suck at this. Where is your argument? You posted a bunch of links, mostly pointing to states that both of them lost by margins WAAAAAY higher than the margin of error on the poll. So what? Make an argument. Links aren't going to do the work for you.

*bolded remarks added by me

Southern States where Clinton does better against McCain then does Obama:

Alabama:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=29a5700a-95ef-4c9f-accf-df8beb98b04e

Arkansas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=32b3487a-6bec-4a4c-a7f4-c57850828cd8

Florida:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=a15d70fd-c3c6-43b6-9491-4211b8a759ba

Kansas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=64c1dbf5-5c47-430f-91d0-57248144a938

Kentucky:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=239ba246-9056-42c1-8c70-8721137b2b55

Louisiana:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=a6305965-33ef-4453-a603-49173c210da7

Mississippi:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=6ae5fbf5-dd41-412c-866d-84737dcf9119

Missouri:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=9a499429-a388-4e22-99fb-e668dcc23958

Oklahoma:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=fbcca567-1b81-49a1-bf09-656cd054004b

Tennessee:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=8e86f07b-b4f0-4c7d-846e-ba4f0223f35b

West Virginia:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=a8387b97-af37-4abb-8240-b9968105c78c

And yet, some of those are the States that Obama whipped Clinton in the primaries/caucuses.

Sure, her way of saying it is less harsh, but it's the same thing. She wins the states that matter, according to her campaign. And what of the "red states". Well, they don't count.
Well, there has been a Red State mentality for at least the last 27 years? Polling appears to suggest that it is going to stay that way again?

BTW, there was less of a Red State mentality during the Clinton years?

Well, there has been a Red State mentality for at least the last 27 years? Polling appears to suggest that it is going to stay that way again?

BTW, there was less of a Red State mentality during the Clinton years?

As she has repeately pointed out, she's not Bill Clinton. That her husband was popular as President is not a reason to vote for her. If you want to associate her to that Presidency, then she loses BIG on NAFTA. She cannot have it both ways, no matter how much you pray that she can.

I've demonstrated which states have a history of swinging in the last four elections, and they have almost an equal electoral value in their columns (based on the wins by Obama and Hillary in the primaries, which counts for squat). However, if you'd like to go this route, the states that swung under Bill Clinton have split half and half for Obama and HRC, but Obama's wins have by majoritively by over 20 percent. Hillary's have been squeakers.

The sad thing is that the Democrats are going to wear themselves out fighting this all the way to the end of the convention. And am putting money on Clinton winning, by means that will eternally appear unethical to the majority of Democrats.

I'm voting for Obama, but I do so knowing that I can't count on my own party to do something without fucking themselves.

And what exactly do you expect her campaign's response to losses to be? "Oh, shit, we lost Idaho. Senator Clinton doesn't deserve to be the nominee."

No. I expect her to just suck it up. Obama didn't say that Ohio doesn't matter. And if he did, I'd be equally annoyed with him.

Are you seriously going to maintain that saying that Obama's states aren't significant is defensible? Really?

I certainly am not pinned to the mat, at least based on this suspect polling. If one looks at the polling in the various States, my points are verified.

It was your argument. You suggested I had not taken a hard look at the data. But a hard look at the data showed your claims to be entirely made up. That's not your shirt on your back, that's the mat.

Now, I know your habit is to just toss out any evidence that doesn't swing your way, but what exactly is "suspect" about this polling. What was the flaw in their methodology?

Dude, you suck at this. Where is your argument? You posted a bunch of links, mostly pointing to states that both of them lost by margins WAAAAAY higher than the margin of error on the poll. So what? Make an argument. Links aren't going to do the work for you.

*bolded remarks added by me
The argument is there...it went right over your head. You are fudging the numbers, badly in some cases. Try again.

The argument is that Clinton polls better against McCain in the States that I posted.

Well, there has been a Red State mentality for at least the last 27 years? Polling appears to suggest that it is going to stay that way again?

BTW, there was less of a Red State mentality during the Clinton years?

The first and the third sentence kind of contradict each other-if he presided over the creation of the divide can we really give him credit for it being 'less'? Also, if Clinton was less about the divide it makes you wonder why this Clinton is so married to it. And again, an inability to decide whether the polls matter or not. I guess they do if you read them selectively.

No. I expect her to just suck it up. Obama didn't say that Ohio doesn't matter. And if he did, I'd be equally annoyed with him.

Are you seriously going to maintain that saying that Obama's states aren't significant is defensible? Really?

Are you seriously going to maintain that Obama has put equal effort into every state? Or has the Obama campaign focused on some states as more significant than others?

Are you seriously going to maintain that Obama has put equal effort into every state? Or has the Obama campaign focused on some states as more significant than others?

I'm seriously going to suggest Obama has treated every state like it mattered. We all know that some states get more attention. However, she didn't say some get more attention than others. Her campaign argued that some states are not significant. They don't matter. That's not the same thing at all.

The argument is there...it went right over your head. You are fudging the numbers, badly in some cases. Try again.

The argument is that Clinton polls better against McCain in the States that I posted.

I am fudging the numbers? What numbers? Quote me.

It was your argument. You suggested I had not taken a hard look at the data. But a hard look at the data showed your claims to be entirely made up. That's not your shirt on your back, that's the mat.
In your dreams pal. :D

If your honest analysis is anything like your recent attempt at the links I posted, then you are the one that is pinned.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
Southern States where Clinton does better against McCain then does Obama:

Alabama:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=29a5700a-95ef-4c9f-accf-df8beb98b04e%20

And what? Both of them lose by 10%
McCain +10 on Clinton, +14 on Obama

Arkansas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=38c3275c-cb8a-4138-971b-c3aa77666fb5%20

A significant gain for Clinton. No surprise
Really...no surprise? A State that has been Red since Clinton won it in 1996. Actually, it was no surprise to me.

Clinton wins this one +11 on McCain, but in regards to Obama, McCain is +20.

Florida:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a15d70fd-c3c6-43b6-9491-4211b8a759ba%20

Also a significant difference. Again, no surprise. He's never campaigned in FL.
And neither has Hillary. Another one that I suggested that Hillary could win but not likely for Obama. Hillary +9 on McCain, but McCain +2 on Obama.

Kansas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=64c1dbf5-5c47-430f-91d0-57248144a938%20

Again, both lose by about 10%
Actually 9%.

Kentucky:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=239ba246-9056-42c1-8c70-8721137b2b55%20

Both lose by more than 10%
McCain +9 on Clinton, +21 on Obama.

Louisiana:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a6305965-33ef-4453-a603-49173c210da7%20

Both lose by more than 10%
McCain +10 on Hillary, +15 on Obama. I think you are failing at rounding?

Mississippi:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6ae5fbf5-dd41-412c-866d-84737dcf9119%20

Both lose by more than 10%
McCain +9 on Clinton, +13 on Obama.

Missouri:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9a499429-a388-4e22-99fb-e668dcc23958%20

Both of them lose by more than the margin of error.
More dishonesty. Margin of error = 4%. McCain +4 on Clinton, +6 on Obama.

Oklahoma:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=fbcca567-1b81-49a1-bf09-656cd054004b%20

Both lose by more than 10%
Wrong again!! McCain +8 on Clinton, +23 on Obama.

Tennessee:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8e86f07b-b4f0-4c7d-846e-ba4f0223f35b%20

This is another significant one. This is certainly within the margin of error.
Certainly is significant. Clinton making inroads to the Red South.

Although the map shows this one for McCain, the result was dead heat at 46% for McCain and Clinton. However, when it comes to Obama, it is McCain +16.

West Virginia:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a8387b97-af37-4abb-8240-b9968105c78c%20

This is also significant.
Absolutely. Go Hillary go!! Hillary +5 on McCain, but McCain +18 on Obama.

Yup, you guys sure are making a case that Obama is stronger across the country.

Now mind you, this is a suspect poll. :)

BTW, am I the only Obama supporter who thinks this tax return issue is phony gamesmanship?

To me, the idea that Hillary Clinton hasn't been subject to enough scrutiny is rather bizarre.

I don't think I really have enough information on that. There have been possible discrepancies with possible undeclared campaign funds, so that may be related.


Go figure huh? Obama is supposedly trying to close the two party gap, yet his supporters on this thread for the main part have been dissing Hillary and her supporters. Talk about being at odds with the prime directive.

How is criticizing a candidate's positions, policies, and tactics at odds with that?

How is criticizing a candidate's positions, policies, and tactics at odds with that?
I think you know what I mean....it is the distasteful adjectives used by Hillary's adversaries that fly in the face of the prime directive? There has been way too much anger and hatred hurled towards Hillary on these threads. Sad really.

And what exactly do you expect her campaign's response to losses to be? "Oh, shit, we lost Idaho. Senator Clinton doesn't deserve to be the nominee."

At the very least? A congratulatory phone call to Obama. It's apparently a standard courtesy that she's been neglecting.

But I don't expect a candidate to practically skip 10 or 11 contests to focus on the "important" ones. Notice that she's now basically skipping two more and focusing on Pennsylvania. She may spend a cursory amount of time in Wyoming, for instance, but all the talk coming out of her campaign is about Penn.

Are you seriously going to maintain that Obama has put equal effort into every state? Or has the Obama campaign focused on some states as more significant than others?

Into every state? Maybe not. But he has put some effort and organization into every state. And the only time I haven't seen state-specific effort was for Super Tuesday, when enough states were voting that the messages were very general. (I also haven't seen anything specific go out about the expatriate vote). In most states, though, the campaign has seemed to focus there until the vote, and then shift focus to the next contest.

I haven't done any of the calling, but I know that there are phone banks and the like that Obama gets those willing to campaign for him involved in - and they seem to be happening state by state, without skipping over those where the polls seem to favor Clinton.

He definitely hasn't been putting the focus on contests that are weeks away when there are contests between them.

I think you know what I mean....it is the distasteful adjectives used by Hillary's adversaries that fly in the face of the prime directive? There has been way too much anger and hatred hurled towards Hillary on these threads. Sad really.

It is. It's, unfortunately, reflective of the fact that there are a number of people, a significant number of people, who truly dislike Clinton. I think there are a lot of reasons for it, many of them entirely illigitimate, but if you think your candidate is electable, you have to realize this is the hill she has to climb.

Absolutely. Go Hillary go!! Hillary +5 on McCain, but McCain +18 on Obama.

Yup, you guys sure are making a case that Obama is stronger across the country.

Now mind you, this is a suspect poll. :)

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

five points to Jocabia.

Sorry if this was posted before.

About Clinton and her experience:

"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," Clinton said on CNN's American Morning on Wednesday.
...former Democratic Senate majority leader George Mitchell, who was a U.S. special envoy to Northern Ireland, told CNN that while Clinton was not directly involved in negotiations, she did play a helpful role in bringing in women's groups that made a difference.
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/clinton.foreign.fact/)

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.
...negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years.

Lord Trimble shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, in 1998. Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator and aide to Mr Hume during the talks, said: "There would have been no contact with her either in person or on the phone. I was with Hume regularly during calls in the months leading up to the Good Friday Agreement when he was taking calls from the White House and they were invariably coming from the president."

Central to Mrs Clinton’s claim of an important Northern Ireland role is a meeting she attended in Belfast in with a group of women from cross-community groups. "I actually went to Northern Ireland more than my husband did," she said in Nashua, New Hampshire on January 6th.

"I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions, having them sitting a room where they had never been before with each other because they don’t go to school together, they don’t live together and it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.
There is no record of a meeting at Belfast City Hall, though Mrs Clinton attended a ceremony there when her husband turned on the Christmas tree lights in November 1995. The former First Lady appears to be referring a 50-minute event the same day, arranged by the US Consulate, the same day at the Lamp Lighter Café on the city’s Ormeau Road.

The "Belfast Telegraph" reported the next day that the café meeting was crammed with reporters, cameramen and Secret Service agents. Conversation "seemed a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times" and Mrs Clinton admired a stainless steel tea pot, which was duly given to her, for keeping the brew "so nice and hot".
Lord Trimble said: "The Women’s Coalition will think they were important. Other people beg to differ."

Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace. "She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already," he said. Mrs Clinton was "a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument", he added.

"She really lost all credibility when on Bill Clinton’s last visit to Northern Ireland [in December 2000] when she hugged and kissed [Sinn Fein leaders] Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Again, going back to this poll:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Obama leads McCain 280 to 258 based on Obama being given the split for Virginia (13 ECV). If the split goes to McCain, then McCain wins the election 271 to 267.

However, in regards to Hillary:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

Hillary leads McCain 276 to 262. Even if Hillary loses the split given to her for New Mexico (5 ECV), she would still win the election 271 to 267.

If Hillary wins all 3 splits (Michigan 17 ECV, New Mexico 5 ECV, and Tennessee 11 ECV), then Hillary clobbers McCain 304 to 239.

Therefore, Hillary's guaranteed win, and potential (according to this suspect poll) is better than relying on an iffy Obama split in Virginia, a Red State that has voted Republican since 1968.

Again, going back to this poll:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Obama leads McCain 280 to 258 based on Obama being given the split for Virginia (13 ECV). If the split goes to McCain, then McCain wins the election 271 to 267.

However, in regards to Hillary:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

Hillary leads McCain 276 to 262. Even if Hillary loses the split given to her for New Mexico (5 ECV), she would still win the election 271 to 267.

If Hillary wins all 3 splits (Michigan 17 ECV, New Mexico 5 ECV, and Tennessee 11 ECV), then Hillary clobbers McCain 304 to 239.

Therefore, Hillary's guaranteed win, and potential (according to this suspect poll) is better than relying on an iffy Obama split in Virginia, a Red State that has voted Republican since 1968.

you aren't really taking the margin of error into account. to quote chris bowers at open left (http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374):


Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points): AR, DC, IL, MA, NY, RI
Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points): CA, CT, FL, ME, MD, OH, VT
Toss Up--135 (five points or less): DE, HI, IA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, WI
Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points): AL, CO, KS, KY, LA, MS, NV, NH, NC, OK, SC, TX, VA
Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points): AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points): CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI
Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points): CO, DE, MA, MN, NM, OH, OR
Toss-up--186: (five points or less): AK, FL, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, PA, TX, VA
Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points): IN, MO, MT
Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points): AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY

Despite seemingly similarity in their performance against McCain, this breakdown shows real differences between Obama and Clinton in the general election. Against Obama, McCain's "solid" and "lean" states only add up to 123, while Obama's add up to 229. In a matchup against Clinton, the "solid" and "lean" states are of equal size: 201 for McCain, and 203 for Clinton. In other words, while McCain and Clinton appear evenly matched, McCain is only able to keep it close against Obama by running up a series of narrow wins in the toss-up states.

Again, going back to this poll:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Obama leads McCain 280 to 258 based on Obama being given the split for Virginia (13 ECV). If the split goes to McCain, then McCain wins the election 271 to 267.

But he didn't. You do know who looking at numbers works, no? See, if Obama gets the bigger numbers, he wins. If McCain does. He wins. Want me to explain to you how to tell which number is bigger?


However, in regards to Hillary:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

Hillary leads McCain 276 to 262. Even if Hillary loses the split given to her for New Mexico (5 ECV), she would still win the election 271 to 267.

If Hillary wins all 3 splits (Michigan 17 ECV, New Mexico 5 ECV, and Tennessee 11 ECV), then Hillary clobbers McCain 304 to 239.

Therefore, Hillary's guaranteed win, and potential (according to this suspect poll) is better than relying on an iffy Obama split in Virginia, a Red State that has voted Republican since 1968.

Oh, dear. That's your argument? Seriously? "Um, what if the numbers were different, then Hillary would still win and Obama wouldn't?" You just make crap up all the time.

If you'd like to play that way, let's look at how many Hillary states are in the margin of error and how many Obama states. Shall we?

Hillary states within the margin of error:
Hawaii - 4
New Mexico - 5
Pennsylvania - 21
Wisconsin - 10

Obama states within the margin of error:
Maine - 4
Michigan - 17
New Hampshire - 4
North Dakota - 3
Virginia - 13

And that means that Obama is hanging onto 41 and Hillary 40, but Obama starts with a larger lead 22 to 13, so he has more room for those states to swing.

Also, here are the McCain states that could swing against Hillary -
Michigan - 17
Missouri - 11
Tennessee - 11
Washington - 11
For a total of 50 that are not firmly in the McCain camp.


Here are the McCain states that could swing against Hillary -
Florida - 27
Nebraska - 5
New Jersey - 15
North Carolina - 15
South Carolina - 8
South Dakota - 3
Texas - 34

That's 107 that are not firmly in his camp.

Playing your game, but actually looking at all the states, not just the ones you cherry pick. Obama has a firm lead of 239 - 151 with 148 delegates left in play. He only needs about 21% of the delegates in the close states.

Hillary has a firm lead of 236 - 212 with 90 delegates left in play. She needs about 38% of the delegates in the close states.

So the numbers are very positive for both candidates, but unless you intentionally ignore the results to draw arbitrary ways to paint this as a victory for Hillary and no Obama, it's clear that an Obama ticket plays better across the board. Obama has 17% better chance of winning if you extract the margin of error.