NationStates Jolt Archive

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):

Precisely. Though should have went with 4% since that's the margin of error. Your numbers certainly do look good though.

It can't be ignored that against McCain, Obama does better than Hillary in 33 states and Hillary reverses that trend in only 15. 17 states Obama positively blows her out, while she returns the favor in 5. He blows her out in more states than she fairs better than him in. Spinning this survey to make it better for Hillary requires some serious numbers fudging.

I'll notice that he won't address what is suspect about this survey other than it doesn't look as good for his candidate. No wonder why.

On the often drummed premise that Clinton carries the big Blue states which is what really matters, states like California and New York and Ohio, the tacit implication being that somehow these big blue states will for some reason turn red if the candidate they voted for isn't the nominee (or maybe the mistaken assumption that the states aren't winner take all in the general election, who knows how this backwards logic is supposed to work)-

California (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5d2fe1f3-6232-4fcd-893b-3b9b0b6d1d15%20)-Obama actually fairs a touch (negligible, 1%) better than Clinton 51/40% to 50/40%

New York (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=fe99284b-1807-4cf7-9cd2-d975bfbbfd7c%20) she does marginally (just outside the margin of error) better than Obama, both who win in a blow out 55/33% to 52/38%

Ohio (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=cba94d6c-f1b7-4a85-8ef2-812406a2c17c%20) Exactly the same, 50/40%

It seems that what is patently obvious is actually true. The 'big blue' states that Clinton wins will in fact stay blue if Obama is the nominee.

I left out New Jersey (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8a0b8355-3392-4524-a701-2c809c5ae7d2%20), not out of dishonesty, I just forgot that it is often included. I'll grant that she actually does better here (47/42%) than Obama (43/43%), but both numbers are within reach of all campaigns.

I left out Florida and Michigan because they are states that have yet to be campaigned. Since a redo is now just down to who pays for it, those results are yet to be determined.

I think this puts a rather large nail in the 'big blue fallacy.' Yes, she won big blue states. Yes, big blue states will stay blue for Obama. No, it's not a good reason to override a delegate lead. Her only valid argument to the super delegates is if she makes the popular vote margin close with a series of wins from her to Pennsylvania. At that point she can argue that the Obama shine is gone and that the population is behind her. If she pulls that off and the supers go her way I'll begrudgingly accept it. While it's not the outcome I'm hoping for it has a degree of legitimacy to it.

Sorry if this was posted before.

About Clinton and her experience:



CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/clinton.foreign.fact/)





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
It hasn't, and it's interesting. Unfortunately the nature of the mega thread means that new information like this often gets passed over. But thanks for posting it, it is interesting.

On the often drummed premise that Clinton carries the big Blue states which is what really matters, states like California and New York and Ohio, the tacit implication being that somehow these big blue states will for some reason turn red if the candidate they voted for isn't the nominee (or maybe the mistaken assumption that the states aren't winner take all in the general election, who knows how this backwards logic is supposed to work)-

California (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5d2fe1f3-6232-4fcd-893b-3b9b0b6d1d15%20)-Obama actually fairs a touch (negligible, 1%) better than Clinton 51/40% to 50/40%

New York (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=fe99284b-1807-4cf7-9cd2-d975bfbbfd7c%20) she does marginally (just outside the margin of error) better than Obama, both who win in a blow out 55/33% to 52/38%

Ohio (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=cba94d6c-f1b7-4a85-8ef2-812406a2c17c%20) Exactly the same, 50/40%

It seems that what is patently obvious is actually true. The 'big blue' states that Clinton wins will in fact stay blue if Obama is the nominee.

I left out New Jersey (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8a0b8355-3392-4524-a701-2c809c5ae7d2%20), not out of dishonesty, I just forgot that it is often included. I'll grant that she actually does better here (47/42%) than Obama (43/43%), but both numbers are within reach of all campaigns.

I left out Florida and Michigan because they are states that have yet to be campaigned. Since a redo is now just down to who pays for it, those results are yet to be determined.

I think this puts a rather large nail in the 'big blue fallacy.' Yes, she won big blue states. Yes, big blue states will stay blue for Obama. No, it's not a good reason to override a delegate lead. Her only valid argument to the super delegates is if she makes the popular vote margin close with a series of wins from her to Pennsylvania. At that point she can argue that the Obama shine is gone and that the population is behind her. If she pulls that off and the supers go her way I'll begrudgingly accept it. While it's not the outcome I'm hoping for it has a degree of legitimacy to it.

I have to say California surprised me. And I'll agree that if the momentum truly shifts that hard, I'd say they should give it to her. Not even begrudgingly. HOWEVER, that means that she starts winning a lot of states, not just a couple here and there. In the final contests if she can't show about a 10% swing I don't think she has an argument. And so far, that seems really unlikely.

I have to say California surprised me. And I'll agree that if the momentum truly shifts that hard, I'd say they should give it to her. Not even begrudgingly. HOWEVER, that means that she starts winning a lot of states, not just a couple here and there. In the final contests if she can't show about a 10% swing I don't think she has an argument. And so far, that seems really unlikely.

Not if she continues to cede small states because they're too 'red.' Even the DNC doesn't rely on this strategy any more. Dean's big thing as chair is the 50 state strategy, and that new strategy is part of what helped the new majority in the house and the now close senate. Where many superdelegates will be facing re-election they benefit from an entrenched Obama infrastructure even if the ultimate electoral college vote doesn't come out Obama. This has a few benefits-it bolsters key seats, assists the opening of new seats, and forces McCain to focus his campaign resources in areas where they might lose ground in the house and senate stretching him thinner against a national campaign that is able to contest every state. This gives Obama a better chance to close narrow states or even open them up for bigger leads, making an already good looking map even better.

Again, this is a more compelling strategy than conceding half the country before the race even begins.

Not if she continues to cede small states because they're too 'red.' They're going to stay red.

Even the DNC doesn't rely on this strategy any more. I disagree.

Dean's big thing as chair is the 50 state strategy, and that new strategy is part of what helped the new majority in the house and the now close senate. Nope.

Where many superdelegates will be facing re-election they benefit from an entrenched Obama infrastructure even if the ultimate electoral college vote doesn't come out Obama. Nuh-uh.

This has a few benefits-it bolsters key seats, assists the opening of new seats, and forces McCain to focus his campaign resources in areas where they might lose ground in the house and senate stretching him thinner against a national campaign that is able to contest every state. *shakes head furiously*

This gives Obama a better chance to close narrow states or even open them up for bigger leads, making an already good looking map even better. No.

Again, this is a more compelling strategy than conceding half the country before the race even begins. Quit attacking me.

My comments are in red.

It hasn't, and it's interesting. Unfortunately the nature of the mega thread means that new information like this often gets passed over. But thanks for posting it, it is interesting.

I read this, too. I was certainly interested, but Gravlen pretty much said it all. Anything else would just be cheerleading. Wait, damn, I just did, didn't I?

I read this, too. I was certainly interested, but Gravlen pretty much said it all. Anything else would just be cheerleading. Wait, damn, I just did, didn't I?

No, it wouldn't be, because you're actually contributing to the thread. I'm not. That's why I said what I said earlier about cheerleading and why I've just been reading silently for the past fifteen pages or so.

Not if she continues to cede small states because they're too 'red.' They're going to stay red.
Polls indicate otherwise... nor has she ceded small states solely on the basis of being "too red." Hawaii isn't very red. How about Maine and Vermont?

Cannot is correct to point out that the presidential race has a strong impact on state and local level races. If Clinton cedes many states in the presidential race, it will hurt the Democrats in Congress.

Polls indicate otherwise... nor has she ceded small states solely on the basis of being "too red." Hawaii isn't very red. How about Maine and Vermont?
Some she just lets go because she just can't win them.

Cannot is correct to point out that the presidential race has a strong impact on state and local level races. If Clinton cedes many states in the presidential race, it will hurt the Democrats in Congress.
Thats why I'm starting to think that she's not the new establishment candidate as much any more. She's still married to (almost literally) the pre-2006 Democratic Party, the 50+1 party, the Red/Blue divide party. I think when it comes to Superdelegates if the race is close enough to be at their discression it will be a treatise between the pre-2006 party and the Dean Democratic Party. In a lot of ways, Obama is a second test for a Dean candidate, a 50 state candidate, a grass roots candidate.

For all the ballyhooing about Obama going negative and comprimising his campaign message, I see encouraging signs that if anything, not yet- (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/politics/08adviser.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1204979244-Q6RMgo72r6822X6OL32PAQ&oref=slogin)
The conflict was given new life on Friday when Samantha Power, a close friend and a senior foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama, resigned after referring to Mrs. Clinton, of New York, as “a monster.”

While Ms. Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, apologized for remarks she called “inexcusable,” the incident underscored the hard feelings that have developed over a long primary race that is probably months from ending.

Mr. Obama, who did not publicly acknowledge Ms. Power’s comment when he arrived here Friday on the eve of the Democratic caucuses in Wyoming, privately admonished members of his staff to avoid being drawn into an unnecessary negative back-and-forth with rivals.

Asked about the incident by a reporter at a campaign stop here,he said he had not “been drawn into a knife fight.”
...
Even as they counterpunched, Mr. Obama’s aides cast themselves as reluctant participants in the brawl.

“There are people that will always do politics as usual better than we will,” said Robert Gibbs, the communications director for Mr. Obama. “That’s why people want something different.”

And while I have agreed, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be learning from Clinton's tax returns, even his sharpened attacks have stayed within his own guidelines, it is framed as a sharp contrast between the two of them-transparency is a centerpiece of his candidacy and a difference between him and Clinton and certainly between him and the Republicans-and that has been pretty consistent part of his criticisms-being a candidate who can take on McCain on special interest contributions, who can take on McCain on support for the Iraq war without the taint of having supported it at the outset, and who can take on McCain on issues of transparency in government.

Tax records are a bit of a 'showy' way of doing it. I still don't know what I'm expected to see, but in the context of his campaign it still fits-
Yet after losing in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas — following days of being pummeled — advisers to Mr. Obama conceded they had to take a sharper tack as the Democratic nominating fight slogs forward in a delegate-by-delegate battle.

While still calibrating how to challenge Mrs. Clinton, advisers to Mr. Obama seemed to settle on an approach by seizing on her delay in releasing income tax returns and the slow pace at which papers from the Clinton White House are being made public.

The Obama campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters that Mrs. Clinton was “one of the most secretive politicians in America today.”
...
Here in Wyoming, Mr. Obama forcefully defended his stance on the Iraq war, reminding voters that he had opposed it from the beginning.

“I just have to mention this because I don’t want anybody here to be confused,” Mr. Obama said. “I was opposed to this war in 2002. If it had been up to me we would have never been in this war. It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war.”

Under Mr. Obama’s rules, the attack does not violate his pledge to wage a new type of politics because it revolves around a specific issue, like Iraq. At another point during a town-hall-style meeting here, he resorted to humor when he invoked the Clinton television advertisement of the telephone ringing in the White House at 3 a.m.

“What do people think I’m going to do? I’m going to answer the phone,” he said, speaking over laughter from the crowd. “I’m going to find out what’s going on.”

At a rally Friday evening in Laramie, Wyo., he hailed Mrs. Clinton as “a fine public servant.” He said her approach in Washington was not to unify but “to beat the other side into submission.”

So far, not too bad. I wish he'd drop the tax return thing. The transparency issue is valid, but I really don't know what I'm supposed to be getting out of it. But through the week he's remained above it despite the glut of articles saying negative was the way to go. If he wins tonight and Tuesday in Mississippi, effectively erasing any advantage from 'crucial Tuesday' I think it becomes moot, and Clinton's negative campaigning (comparing Obama to Ken Starr...) will look divisive again. Time will tell. What are we, two hours away from Wyoming? I have no idea which way that will go, I haven't seen a single poll and counting on his caucus strength seems a little foolish. If he loses tonight then I think the danger is still there.

Polls indicate otherwise... nor has she ceded small states solely on the basis of being "too red." Hawaii isn't very red. How about Maine and Vermont?

Cannot is correct to point out that the presidential race has a strong impact on state and local level races. If Clinton cedes many states in the presidential race, it will hurt the Democrats in Congress.

I was making a joke, actually. CTOAN and I both did long intricate posts where we did a bunch of research and posted our reasons for our conclusions and another poster replied in red by saying "nuh-uh". I was just demonstrating how it's not really an argument. I'd say it was pretty effective. Hopefully, CTOAN laughed.

I was making a joke, actually. CTOAN and I both did long intricate posts where we did a bunch of research and posted our reasons for our conclusions and another poster replied in red by saying "nuh-uh". I was just demonstrating how it's not really an argument. I'd say it was pretty effective. Hopefully, CTOAN laughed.

Even my girlfriend laughed. (but I had to explain it to her first...nothing makes you feel sadder than trying to explain your forum funnies to a girlfriend...ah well)

EDIT: Oh jesus, the Clinton campaign says "We are pleased at a near split in Wyoming, the Obama campaign predicted victory in Wyoming..." I can't remember the rest. Are they kidding with this? If 59-40 is a near split, if 7-4 is a near split, what the hell was Ohio, never mind Texas. Sheesh...

LOL. Well, if that is a near split, Hillary's actually only clearly won...what? One state?

(CNN is now saying 58 to 41 percent, but that's still a far cry from a "near split")

Well, that happened quietly, I was expecting the whole fancy deal and whatnot, but I flipped to CNN after the motorcycle races (I have priorities, you know...) and he takes Wyoming hard-

With 96% reporting it's 59-40%, which the commentator says the Clinton campaign counts as a bit of a victory because it wasn't as much of a loss that they thought it would be and she picks up 4 delegates (Obama picks up 7, I don't know what happened to the other guy. Maybe he overslept...)

EDIT: Oh jesus, the Clinton campaign says "We are pleased at a near split in Wyoming, the Obama campaign predicted victory in Wyoming..." I can't remember the rest. Are they kidding with this? If 59-40 is a near split, if 7-4 is a near split, what the hell was Ohio, never mind Texas. Sheesh...

Well, that happened quietly, I was expecting the whole fancy deal and whatnot, but I flipped to CNN after the motorcycle races (I have priorities, you know...) and he takes Wyoming hard-

With 96% reporting it's 59-40%, which the commentator says the Clinton campaign counts as a bit of a victory because it wasn't as much of a loss that they thought it would be and she picks up 4 delegates (Obama picks up 7, I don't know what happened to the other guy. Maybe he overslept...)

EDIT: Oh jesus, the Clinton campaign says "We are pleased at a near split in Wyoming, the Obama campaign predicted victory in Wyoming..." I can't remember the rest. Are they kidding with this? If 59-40 is a near split, if 7-4 is a near split, what the hell was Ohio, never mind Texas. Sheesh...
Worse yet, my father is still swallowing this rhetoric and won't listen to a word I have to say against it. :headbang:

Worse yet, my father is still swallowing this rhetoric and won't listen to a word I have to say against it. :headbang:

With 100% reporting CNN has it at 61%-38%. Yeah, that's a squeaker...(where's Free Soviets list of Obama states won by 60% or more...)


I just heard a clip of James Carville challenging the Obama campaign to pay 15 million if Carville/Clinton pays 15 million. I'm getting more and more confident that in the next week or so that'll be exactly what happens.

With 100% reporting CNN has it at 61%-38%. Yeah, that's a squeaker...


I just heard a clip of James Carville challenging the Obama campaign to pay 15 million if Carville/Clinton pays 15 million. I'm getting more and more confident that in the next week or so that'll be exactly what happens.

Let's just hope Obama gets on the ball first so that he maintains the advantage.

Let's just hope Obama gets on the ball first so that he maintains the advantage.

I guess CBS is giving that last delegate to Clinton making it 7-5, which can reasonably called close in the delegate count if that's the only way you choose to look at it. I guess if you have to put a bow on a loss...

Okay, this is funny (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/31755-3am-phone-ad-girl-is-an-obama-precinct-campaign).

Apparently that sleeping girl in the 3AM ad with the sleeping girl? Well, it turns out it's stock footage of a girl who is just now voting age and was a precinct captain for Obama.

No, it doesn't change the message of the ad, no it's not inappropriate use, it's properly purchased stock footage and entirely appropriate for use, it's just funny.

I'll notice that he won't address what is suspect about this survey other than it doesn't look as good for his candidate. No wonder why.
The survey is based on 1 suspect poll, which I have stated from the onset. Considering the volatility of polls in recent weeks, it is very difficult to put our life's savings into its' veracity? To suggest that CA is not solidly in Clinton's camp is somewhat remiss?

Even the maps are somewhat suspect in that it shows VA in blue (for Obama), even though it is a split for Obama based on 1 vote.

The Clinton charts don't show blue for two States (Minnesota and Ohio) in the column under her name. Presentation is everything?

But for 1 vote out of 600 in Michigan, that State would have shown blue for Hillary and that is with an undecided black vote of 27% that was splitting almost 3 to one for Clinton.

Again, unusually large number of black undecided voters that were splitting more than 3 for 1 for Clinton in Tennessee could easily turn that State Blue.

It appears that there is a larger than average undecided black voters in most Clinton matchups, even when they are breaking 3 or 4 to 1 of the decided black voters for Clinton.

Anyways, I will go back to what I stated earlier:

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.

Note: that split was based on 1 vote out of 629 total votes.

To suggest that CA is not solidly in Clinton's camp is somewhat remiss?

I'll let Jocabia deal with the rest, but this has to be the most willfully ignorant thing posted in a while, and considering how this is gone that's saying something.

One can only assume by this assertion in response to what I wrote about California is that since California voted for Clinton in the primaries (something no one has disputed) they will only vote for Clinton in the general election and if not her, presumably McCain, because, as you say, CA is 'solidly in Clinton's camp.'

Really? Really??? Good lord.

The poll shows that both Clinton and Obama win California by essentially the same margin, Obama having a statistically insignificant advantage. This isn't a rebuke that California chose Clinton over Obama, it is a rebuke that because of that it will only vote for Clinton or McCain. That premise doesn't hold up, it's cartoonish, it's ridiculous.

I was making a joke, actually. CTOAN and I both did long intricate posts where we did a bunch of research and posted our reasons for our conclusions and another poster replied in red by saying "nuh-uh". I was just demonstrating how it's not really an argument. I'd say it was pretty effective. Hopefully, CTOAN laughed.
I did respond to that several times here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13455576&postcount=830), here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13464092&postcount=98) and especially this one (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527), which basically validates my claims according to the recent suspect poll.

There are mild surprises though in that Arizona, and North Dakota could go blue. Virginia (Obama) and Tennessee (Clinton) could also go blue, but they are virtual ties based solely on one poll.

Note: Virginia was not yet on Jocabia's list and I firmly believe that that State will not turn blue no matter what.

(where's Free Soviets list of Obama states won by 60% or more...)

you rang?

Contests Obama has won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Dems Abroad (65%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Hawaii (76%)
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
Wyoming (61%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*

And we should probably spot him Maine (59.47%) and Vermont (59.81)* too. Wisconsin* falls just short of making the list at 58.13%.

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

Her next highest is Rhode Island (58.46%)*, then New York* at 57.39% and then Massachusetts* at 56.16%

* primary rather than caucus contest

Congratulations Obama on yet another victory of 20% or more. Keep it up dude :)

I'll let Jocabia deal with the rest, but this has to be the most willfully ignorant thing posted in a while, and considering how this is gone that's saying something.

One can only assume by this assertion in response to what I wrote about California is that since California voted for Clinton in the primaries (something no one has disputed) they will only vote for Clinton in the general election and if not her, presumably McCain, because, as you say, CA is 'solidly in Clinton's camp.'

Really? Really??? Good lord.

The poll shows that both Clinton and Obama win California by essentially the same margin, Obama having a statistically insignificant advantage. This isn't a rebuke that California chose Clinton over Obama, it is a rebuke that because of that it will only vote for Clinton or McCain. That premise doesn't hold up, it's cartoonish, it's ridiculous.
Did ya feel a backed up need to pontificate?

You obviously misinterpreted what I said, due to your flawed assumption(s)? The verbal diarrhea thereafter, was not only unnecessarily extraneous, but also unwarranted.

Did ya feel a backed up need to pontificate?

You obviously misinterpreted what I said, due to your flawed assumption(s)? The verbal diarrhea thereafter, was not only unnecessarily extraneous, but also unwarranted.

When confronted with evidence he does not like, CH attacks the poster. Come on CH! You are far better debater than this. Show it.

Did ya feel a backed up need to pontificate?

You obviously misinterpreted what I said, due to your flawed assumption(s)? The verbal diarrhea thereafter, was not only unnecessarily extraneous, but also unwarranted.

You make a bad Fass. Explain your comment, then, champ.

So your going to insist on over-reacting to something someone from her campaign said?

Which states, by the way, has Clinton not at least tried to campaign in?

Just because she has lost some states and her campaign wishes to draw media attention away from those losses (or anticipated losses) doesn't mean that Clinton ignored such states or wrote them off entirely.

Her comments about Obama's caucuses victories has something to do with it.

When confronted with evidence he does not like, CH attacks the poster. Come on CH! You are far better debater than this. Show it.
Practice what you preach. Go away troll.

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.

So your going to insist on over-reacting to something someone from her campaign said?

Which states, by the way, has Clinton not at least tried to campaign in?

Just because she has lost some states and her campaign wishes to draw media attention away from those losses (or anticipated losses) doesn't mean that Clinton ignored such states or wrote them off entirely.

Care to explain or are you just cheerleading again?

I believe it was something along the lines that caucuses do not really matter coupled with the fact that Clinton rarely congratulates Obama on his victories in the states that he has won while he congratulated her on the states that she has won.

No this has nothing to do with cheerleading though nothing will make me happier than to see Hillary finally get slapped down hard by the national electorate.

So your going to insist on over-reacting to something someone from her campaign said?

Which states, by the way, has Clinton not at least tried to campaign in?

Just because she has lost some states and her campaign wishes to draw media attention away from those losses (or anticipated losses) doesn't mean that Clinton ignored such states or wrote them off entirely.

Additionally, and what people continuously forget in this thread, they do these things because it's politically advantageous. They have strategy. The weigh up the pros and cons of everything they say and everything they do as a calculation to win the nomination.

The strategy behind devaluing these states is so she can say 'Well in the key states, where I've really battled with Senator Obama, I've won, I can win where I have to'. To think 'she doesn't care for all these states' is a very shallow assessment.

Both on this and the Florida/Michigan question, all one can talk about is whether the political strategy is working or not.

I'll notice that he won't address what is suspect about this survey other than it doesn't look as good for his candidate. No wonder why.

The survey is based on 1 suspect poll, which I have stated from the onset. Considering the volatility of polls in recent weeks, it is very difficult to put our life's savings into its' veracity? To suggest that CA is not solidly in Clinton's camp is somewhat remiss?


You make a bad Fass. Explain your comment, then, champ.
See above. Bolding mine.

Her comments about Obama's caucuses victories has something to do with it.

Care to explain or are you just cheerleading again?

So your going to insist on over-reacting to something someone from her campaign said?

Which states, by the way, has Clinton not at least tried to campaign in?

Just because she has lost some states and her campaign wishes to draw media attention away from those losses (or anticipated losses) doesn't mean that Clinton ignored such states or wrote them off entirely.

After Super Tuesday when the Firewall approach was made she skipped campaigning in the Potomac states in favor of building support in Ohio. During the evening of the primary before the Potomac primaries she was in Ohio, Barack was in a Potomac state (I believe Virginia).

After the clean sweep, and the severity of the sweep there was a change in strategy and and the last minute campaign stops were made in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Clinton has the pattern of conceding strong Obama demographics and shoring her base while Obama has a pattern of reaching out to Clinton's base, trying to improve his message to Hispanics or women. That was what made Wisconsin a big deal, Obama had eaten into traditional Clinton strong demographics partially because of his efforts in the state and partially because of her lack of effort.

It's that difference in response. If Clinton loses she tells us why they don't matter. If Obama loses he tries harder to get his message to the people he's losing to.

EDIT: I have to correct myself. I will allow that I was given the impression that she abandoned the Potomac all together, but that's not true-
Both candidates were out campaigning Sunday in Virginia, which holds primaries Tuesday along with its Potomac River neighbors, Maryland and the US federal capital, Washington, DC. Obama is favored in all three due to their large African-American populations.
source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080210/ts_afp/usvote)

So, while I think the sound of the coverage has given me the impression that she hasn't at all that doesn't make up for the fact that it isn't true, therefore I have to back off that claim. The rest of my premise, though, is based on the spin presented by the Clinton campaign themselves and my criticism of that stands.

hey, check it out, early obama coattails (sorta).
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/832895,cong030808.article

tl;dr version - democrat bill foster wins il-14, former seat of republican speak of the house dennis hastert that went 56% for bush in 2004 and that the national republican congressional committee just spent like nearly a third of their money trying to defend, with an assist from obama having his campaign help out.

See above. Bolding mine.

Yeah, you're not done there, slugger. I know the chain of the conversation. I gave the implication of your conclusion, if it's something else put up.

Also, seriously, Wyoming - about 8, 500 people voted with 5, 378 for Senator Obama and 3, 312 for Senator Clinton.

To point to all these 60% states, when many of them are, to be honest, tiny vote numbers, doesn't say much.

There's a difference between winning a state with more than 100, 000 votes compared to those with a tiny vote number.

Sure, you can discount Rhode Island as well on this, much as I couldn't care much for Vermont.

That's why the overall vote tally, where over 25 million votes have been cast and the difference is negligble, is a fair argument to make, again, as a political strategy to gain the nomination.

Additionally, and what people continuously forget in this thread, they do these things because it's politically advantageous. They have strategy. The weigh up the pros and cons of everything they say and everything they do as a calculation to win the nomination.

Or, just maybe, we know why such decisions are made and we don't like that type of political strategy.

Also, seriously, Wyoming - about 8, 500 people voted with 5, 378 for Senator Obama and 3, 312 for Senator Clinton.

To point to all these 60% states, when many of them are, to be honest, tiny vote numbers, doesn't say much.

That really depends. Those tiny states certainly have an effect on the election - primary or general. Discounting them isn't a good idea.

But if we are going to get into that, let's talk about GA. Obama beat Clinton by over 350,000 votes. In just a single county, he beat her by over 70,000.

Clinton won by more than 60% in one state (Arkansas), in which the total number of votes was smaller than the number Obama alone got in GA.

Which states, by the way, has Clinton not at least tried to campaign in?I don't think she had any paid staff in Alaska.

Additionally, and what people continuously forget in this thread, they do these things because it's politically advantageous. They have strategy. The weigh up the pros and cons of everything they say and everything they do as a calculation to win the nomination.

The strategy behind devaluing these states is so she can say 'Well in the key states, where I've really battled with Senator Obama, I've won, I can win where I have to'. To think 'she doesn't care for all these states' is a very shallow assessment.

Both on this and the Florida/Michigan question, all one can talk about is whether the political strategy is working or not.
We're critiquing that strategy, not forgetting it is one.

Well the only thing that matters now is this.

If Senator Clinton can win the popular vote, and to do that she needs to win big in Pennsylvania, if she can somehow get Florida and Michigan back on, and if that's by reholding then she needs to win them by a similar margin as before, then she has her case.

If not, I simply cannot see the super delegates voting in her favour.

All the rest is, to some extent, moot - they're talking points to carry the debate forward sure but they're not important in the grand scheme of things.

Well the only thing that matters now is this.

If Senator Clinton can win the popular vote, and to do that she needs to win big in Pennsylvania, if she can somehow get Florida and Michigan back on, and if that's by reholding then she needs to win them by a similar margin as before, then she has her case.

She needs to win big in every state. That did not happen tonight.

That really depends. Those tiny states certainly have an effect on the election - primary or general. Discounting them isn't a good idea.

But if we are going to get into that, let's talk about GA. Obama beat Clinton by over 350,000 votes. In just a single county, he beat her by over 70,000.

Clinton won by more than 60% in one state (Arkansas), in which the total number of votes was smaller than the number Obama alone got in GA.

Georgia's quite a strong point and draws into my previous post about why I think Senator Obama should take this. If Senator Clinton is seen to take the nomination through unfair means it's going to disenfranchise the black vote and this would very likely lose Georgia for the actual election - I think it's a fairly key state.

However, I also think Ohio is a key state - who do people trust on the economy between Senator McCain and Obama?

Can Senator Clinton lose Georgia if she takes, say, Florida and Ohio?

Looking at primary numbers doesn't, for me, say much - the actual election's a different beast.

She needs to win big in every state. That did not happen tonight.

A difference of 2, 000 votes isn't that much compared to a difference of 200, 000 - she can lose a Wyoming and still win the overall vote tally.

Well the only thing that matters now is this.

If Senator Clinton can win the popular vote, and to do that she needs to win big in Pennsylvania, if she can somehow get Florida and Michigan back on, and if that's by reholding then she needs to win them by a similar margin as before, then she has her case.

If not, I simply cannot see the super delegates voting in her favour.

All the rest is, to some extent, moot - they're talking points to carry the debate forward sure but they're not important in the grand scheme of things.

Way (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13511177&postcount=1502) ahead (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13511197&postcount=1504) of you on that, except that if she doesn't win some of these other states in order to get that popular vote margin she has to win Pennsylvania by a pretty big margin, a margin she hasn't gotten without the race being uncontested or being the state's first lady.

With Pennsylvania she has the advantage of not having a bunch of other 'smaller' contests between now and then to undermine her like she did with her last Firewalls, and even with those losses she still pulled wins in Ohio and Texas, though arguably not by enough and the difference gained could be made up in Wyoming and Mississippi.

I earnestly believe we'll see the campaigns funding a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. In Michigan Obama wasn't on the ballot and in Florida it was the only state where the Republican turn out was more than the Democratic turn out, credited to the fact that the election wasn't going to count.

Now I'll say this, I honestly thing she'll win those states in a redo. I don't think it's a lock and Obama should fight for every vote, but I think when it comes down to the final tally she might just carry them. But it won't be by the kind of margin she needs to make the popular vote close enough to be discretionary.

A difference of 2, 000 votes isn't that much compared to a difference of 200, 000 - she can lose a Wyoming and still win the overall vote tally.

This is going to be the worst analogy in the history of analogies, so I apologize. But it's like this-

In Police Academy II:Their First Assignment gang leader Zed (Bobcat Goldthwait) is thrown down the stairs and each time he tumbles he blurts out "That didn't hurt! That didn't hurt!" but by the end of the fall it's apparent that while individually the bumps and rolls didn't 'hurt,' collectively, as he finally admits at the bottom of the stairs, "Okay, that hurt."

With a girth of 'that didn't hurt' victories pilled up she puts more pressure on herself to have wins that she just hasn't been able to pull off in the big states. It's not that Wyoming isn't enough to make the final difference, it's that he has over 20 some odd Wyomings that makes what she has to pull off in Pennsylvania in order of it not to 'hurt' all the more difficult.

I told you it was the worst analogy in the history of analogies. But there it is.

This is going to be the worst analogy in the history of analogies, so I apologize. But it's like this-

In Police Academy II:Their First Assignment gang leader Zed (Bobcat Goldthwait) is thrown down the stairs and each time he tumbles he blurts out "That didn't hurt! That didn't hurt!" but by the end of the fall it's apparent that while individually the bumps and rolls didn't 'hurt,' collectively, as he finally admits at the bottom of the stairs, "Okay, that hurt."

With a girth of 'that didn't hurt' victories pilled up she puts more pressure on herself to have wins that she just hasn't been able to pull off in the big states. It's not that Wyoming isn't enough to make the final difference, it's that he has over 20 some odd Wyomings that makes what she has to pull off in Pennsylvania in order of it not to 'hurt' all the more difficult.

I told you it was the worst analogy in the history of analogies. But there it is.

Ha ha, fair enough.

Like I say, if she can get Fl. and Mi. back on, win big in Penn., then she has a good case - if not, she's out.

It's close, just not close enough for her yet, close enough to continue though.

However, as I've said before, if she wins, there's no escaping that people will just feel cheated even if, if not especially if, Fl. and Mi. are put back on the table.

How that affects the actual election will be important.

Ha ha, fair enough.

Like I say, if she can get Fl. and Mi. back on, win big in Penn., then she has a good case - if not, she's out.

It's close, just not close enough for her yet, close enough to continue though.

However, as I've said before, if she wins, there's no escaping that people will just feel cheated even if, if not especially if, Fl. and Mi. are put back on the table.

How that affects the actual election will be important.

If she pulls the popular vote tight enough she'll have a good case and it will be up to Obama to be the bigger person and shore up his supporters behind Clinton. If he throws a tantrum so will his supporters, and some supporters will do that anyway, but I think and would like to hope he can get the bulk of them back in line. Whether that will convert with his cross over and independent support will be another matter.

Sheesh -- people, are you sure you wouldn't like to conduct this debate just by exchanging :upyours:s and :sniper:s?

C'mon, quit the extraneous comments and stick to the topic, which is The US Election, not How Other Posters Fail to Comply with My Enlightened Outlook.

That really depends. Those tiny states certainly have an effect on the election - primary or general. Discounting them isn't a good idea.

But if we are going to get into that, let's talk about GA. Obama beat Clinton by over 350,000 votes. In just a single county, he beat her by over 70,000.

Clinton won by more than 60% in one state (Arkansas), in which the total number of votes was smaller than the number Obama alone got in GA.
This is where irrelevance rears its' ugly head?

Speaking of Georgia, Obama beat her in a State that is just not going into the Dem column period.

In Louisiana, Obama bested Clinton 57% to 36%, but in the recent poll, McCain is +10 on Hillary, but +15 on Obama.

Clinton is better placed for winning the South with Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia, Tennessee, and an outside shot at Missouri.

And Missouri is an interesting story:

Missouri has an uncanny ability to choose presidential winners, going with the loser only once in the past century (Adlai Stevenson in 1956). The state is effectively an intersection of cultural forces -- urban and rural, north and south, east and west -- and it periodically swings with prevailing national moods.
In the recent poll, it goes like this:

McCain +4 over Clinton (plus/minus 4), and McCain +6 over Obama.

In Louisiana, Obama bested Clinton 57% to 36%, but in the recent poll, McCain is +10 on Hillary, but +15 on Obama.
You don't see how this completely sinks your whole "who won what state" argument?


And Missouri is an interesting story:


In the recent poll, it goes like this:

McCain +4 over Clinton (plus/minus 4), and McCain +6 over Obama.

Statistically insignificantly difference? Compelling.

This is where irrelevance rears its' ugly head?

95 delegates is irrelevant?

Speaking of Georgia, Obama beat her in a State that is just not going into the Dem column period.

Do you often win contests by giving them up before they've even begun?

hey, check it out, early obama coattails (sorta).
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/832895,cong030808.article

tl;dr version - democrat bill foster wins il-14, former seat of republican speak of the house dennis hastert that went 56% for bush in 2004 and that the national republican congressional committee just spent like nearly a third of their money trying to defend, with an assist from obama having his campaign help out.
This got skipped over but it's a pretty good indication of what I've been talking about with the 50 state strategy.

The race between Foster and Oberweis spawned a contentious campaign that saw both men turn to high-profile supporters to help sway voters in the longtime GOP district.
You don't get results like these by ceding states and districts. And already an Obama infrastructure forced the opposition to blow a lot of their wad to defend a seat and still weren't able to. This is the kind of thing McCain faces in Obama and the 50 state strategy, something he won't have to worry about as much with Clinton only focusing on 'battleground' states.

Now I'll admit that it is a bit overstated, certainly Clinton will be able to tap into at least some of that base that Obama has created and Dean is a big advocate of the 50 state strategy, so it won't be as cut and dry as one won't and one will. But when you have a campaign that is already running that, who has adopted that strategy, it's that much stronger.

Sheesh -- people, are you sure you wouldn't like to conduct this debate just by exchanging :upyours:s and :sniper:s?

C'mon, quit the extraneous comments and stick to the topic, which is The US Election, not How Other Posters Fail to Comply with My Enlightened Outlook.

Indeed.

Anywho, even though I said I wouldn't, I'll giver her a go. (Insert the old bromide about the definition of insanity being repeating the same actions while expecting different results here. Then again, more than one person has been know to question my sanity. ;)

The Economist ran an interesting op-ed piece that explains some (that's some, not all) of the hard feelings between the two camps of Dems: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808693

Over the last couple of months, I've started to wonder about the Dems splintering as well as the GOP. Actually, I look forward to this for many reasons.

Indeed.

Anywho, even though I said I wouldn't, I'll giver her a go. (Insert the old bromide about the definition of insanity being repeating the same actions while expecting different results here. Then again, more than one person has been know to question my sanity. ;)

The Economist ran an interesting op-ed piece that explains some (that's some, not all) of the hard feelings between the two camps of Dems: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808693

Over the last couple of months, I've started to wonder about the Dems splintering as well as the GOP. Actually, I look forward to this for many reasons.
You should have outlined the post you wanted to make to Ardie, she might have allowed it.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of that article though I think that it over states it a bit, not to mention ignores that McCain has problems of his own.

Demographically its what we've known. Obama pulls in the college crowd and Clinton pulls in the blue collar crowd.

And I absolutely agree they both lost their way with the 'who hates NAFTA more pissing contest they got into in Ohio. It was stupid and ultimately cost Obama.

However, it glosses over the fact that Obama reaches across that divide. And Clinton hasn't been deaf to that criticism, Bill was talking about the training program thing in an appearance in Mississippi just today.

Clinton is trying to thread a needle right now, I think recognizing that anything she does to knock Obama out of the box is going to fracture the base and do away with the advantage that McCain's fractured base creates. She has to knock him just enough to get close enough for the super delegates to act on discretion and not too much that he'd walk away from a vice presidency. He's not in a position to have to consider that yet.

There is an old party new party divide, that much is true. And it wouldn't be enough for one of the two parties to fracture, they'd both have to fracture at roughly the same time in order to break up the system and get real choices. So, in that I agree with you it might be nice. But I think the article makes too much of the divide as it is. It's possible that after April 22nd the divisions might be too great, but I think it's hard to assume that the level of enthusiasm and activity in the party is really going to just flicker away. People have been trying to put the nail in this coffin for a while and it just won't go in.

You should have outlined the post you wanted to make to Ardie, she might have allowed it.


No I wouldn't. I'm not letting people with typos in their sigs get away with anything!

No I wouldn't. I'm not letting people with typos in their sigs get away with anything!

And that, my friends, is why I copy/paste my signatures...well, except for what my nephew said, that was just classic...

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808693

This is a HORRIBLE article. I wish I could get paid for simply writing down political stereotypes.

This is a HORRIBLE article. I wish I could get paid for simply writing down political stereotypes.

How cool is it that that was your 666th post?

It hasn't, and it's interesting. Unfortunately the nature of the mega thread means that new information like this often gets passed over. But thanks for posting it, it is interesting.

Yay!

At least I know someone noticed it :)

And more election tidbits:

Iowa Congressman Steve King says terrorists would celebrate if Democratic candidate Barack Obama won the presidency.

King, a Republican, bases his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name Hussein.

King, in an interview today with the Daily Reporter in Spencer, said al-Qaida would "be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11th."

King says terrorists would declare victory in the war on terror because Obama would pull troops out of the Middle East.

The congressman added "They'll be dancing in the streets because of his middle name, they'll be dancing in the streets because of who his father was."

http://www.whotv.com/global/story.asp?s=7984521

How cool is it that that was your 666th post?
It is totally cool. That's how.

And more election tidbits:



http://www.whotv.com/global/story.asp?s=7984521

Steve King, insane congressperson representing western Iowa, the most completely worthless part of the state (except for Sioux City, which isn't completely worthless)

And more election tidbits:

http://www.whotv.com/global/story.asp?s=7984521
Obviously this King nut has not done his homework?

Indeed.

Anywho, even though I said I wouldn't, I'll giver her a go. (Insert the old bromide about the definition of insanity being repeating the same actions while expecting different results here. Then again, more than one person has been know to question my sanity. ;)

The Economist ran an interesting op-ed piece that explains some (that's some, not all) of the hard feelings between the two camps of Dems: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808693

Over the last couple of months, I've started to wonder about the Dems splintering as well as the GOP. Actually, I look forward to this for many reasons.
Yup, I can see that divisiveness right here on these boards. Obama and Clinton both have great strength and support, and perhaps neither will be able to bring about the cohesiveness required to grab the brass ring.

Indeed.

Anywho, even though I said I wouldn't, I'll giver her a go. (Insert the old bromide about the definition of insanity being repeating the same actions while expecting different results here. Then again, more than one person has been know to question my sanity. ;)

The Economist ran an interesting op-ed piece that explains some (that's some, not all) of the hard feelings between the two camps of Dems: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808693

Over the last couple of months, I've started to wonder about the Dems splintering as well as the GOP. Actually, I look forward to this for many reasons.

How many white Obama voters eat in Cracker Barrel or Bob Evans? And how many Clinton voters have a taste for sushi?

I eat in Cracker Barrel. I also like sushi. My friend who is voting for Clinton will eat sushi with me. I dunno if he eats in Cracker Barrel.

Mrs Clinton's supporters, by contrast, are kitchen-table voters. They wear jackets emblazoned with the logos of their unions.

Obama has gained support from quite a few unions.

The battle for the Democratic Party is so bitter because it is a battle over culture. Mrs Clinton's supporters look at Mr Obama's and see latte-drinking elitists. Mr Obama's supporters look at Mrs Clinton's and smell all sorts of ancestral sins, not least racism. The two groups neither like nor respect each other.

Really? Damn, looks like I'm going to have to get rid of some friends, then. They're big racist sinners. Or something.

How many white Obama voters eat in Cracker Barrel or Bob Evans? And how many Clinton voters have a taste for sushi?

I eat in Cracker Barrel. I also like sushi. My friend who is voting for Clinton will eat sushi with me. I dunno if he eats in Cracker Barrel.

Mrs Clinton's supporters, by contrast, are kitchen-table voters. They wear jackets emblazoned with the logos of their unions.

Obama has gained support from quite a few unions.

The battle for the Democratic Party is so bitter because it is a battle over culture. Mrs Clinton's supporters look at Mr Obama's and see latte-drinking elitists. Mr Obama's supporters look at Mrs Clinton's and smell all sorts of ancestral sins, not least racism. The two groups neither like nor respect each other.

Really? Damn, looks like I'm going to have to get rid of some friends, then. They're big racist sinners. Or something.
I don't know that there even are Cracker Barrels around here and I hate sushi. What ever am I to do?!?! Yeah, he completely brushes aside the fact that Obama already does reach across that divide and makes far far too much of a demographic split. Wine track and beer track are the Soccer Mom and NASCAR Dad of this election cycle, more of an over blown distinction that allows the election to have a narrative than something that will actually manifest. Barring something like a clearly Rovian attack or a clear reversal thats done from a position of political favoritism it's cartoonish to think that a spirited contest with record participation is somehow the death kneel of the party.

Clearly some people would like to put their upturned palm to their head crying "Woe, woe! Why won't people see?" while at the same time kicking up as much dirt as they can in the hope that some of it will stick, but really only the batshit fringe are so married to the debate that they won't be able to come back under the tent after it is over.

The article relies on broad stereotypes, making too much of demographics, and overstating the issue to make its tenuous point.

The survey is based on 1 suspect poll, which I have stated from the onset. Considering the volatility of polls in recent weeks, it is very difficult to put our life's savings into its' veracity? To suggest that CA is not solidly in Clinton's camp is somewhat remiss?

Even the maps are somewhat suspect in that it shows VA in blue (for Obama), even though it is a split for Obama based on 1 vote.

What is the flaw in their methodology? Again, they list the margin of error. And if you'd like to discount the states where the difference is less than the margin of error, Obama slaughted Hillary. Slaughtered. 17% is a route.


The Clinton charts don't show blue for two States (Minnesota and Ohio) in the column under her name. Presentation is everything?

So you throw out the poll because their graphics department makes mistakes? Dear God, man, you'll cling to anything to ignore the evidence.


But for 1 vote out of 600 in Michigan, that State would have shown blue for Hillary and that is with an undecided black vote of 27% that was splitting almost 3 to one for Clinton.

They conducted 30,000 interviews against your incredibly flawed and increasingly debunked word. Hmmm... I know which I'll picked. Again, explain the flaw in their methodology.


Again, unusually large number of black undecided voters that were splitting more than 3 for 1 for Clinton in Tennessee could easily turn that State Blue.

It appears that there is a larger than average undecided black voters in most Clinton matchups, even when they are breaking 3 or 4 to 1 of the decided black voters for Clinton.

Anyways, I will go back to what I stated earlier:

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.

Note: that split was based on 1 vote out of 629 total votes.
So in other words you have not problem with their methodology. You just want to selectively pick out states and flip them. Understood. You fail in making an argument.

"I don't agree with this study!"
"Why?'
"Because if it's right then I'm wrong."

Sorry, Bubba, but in debate you have to debunk evidence, not just shake your head furiously.

See above. Bolding mine.

Again, "nuh-uh" is not debate. You're simply being contrary. What is the flaw in their methodology? According to the study California is solidly in both camps. However, if you cannot find the flaw in the methodology then their 30,000 interviews certainly override "no way, man, it can't be."

I did respond to that several times here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13455576&postcount=830), here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13464092&postcount=98) and especially this one (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13443083&postcount=527), which basically validates my claims according to the recent suspect poll.

There are mild surprises though in that Arizona, and North Dakota could go blue. Virginia (Obama) and Tennessee (Clinton) could also go blue, but they are virtual ties based solely on one poll.

Note: Virginia was not yet on Jocabia's list and I firmly believe that that State will not turn blue no matter what.


Haha. That's awesome. Perfect. Your "especially here" looks exactly like my joke post. I posted EVIDENCE. Your reply was, no, it's staying red. Why is it staying red? Who knows, because you didn't give ANY reasoning at all. This is a debate. Nuh-uh isn't going to fly no matter how many times you complain about us not accepting it.

And more election tidbits:



http://www.whotv.com/global/story.asp?s=7984521


Aw man. I have some of his books, he is a very good horror writer. Now I'll never be able to read The Stand without thinking that the guy who wrote it is a right wing douchebag. :(

This is more on the 50 state strategy vs. the 'key state' strategy, or as Tad Devine puts it-
Tad Devine, a senior Democratic strategist who has overseen bitter convention battles, said Obama was still the favour-ite to win. “He has a 50-state strategy and she has a 15-state strategy and in the end that may be decisive,” he said. “The most important factor for the superdelegates will be who has the most pledged delegates.”

Clinton will need improbably large victories in the remaining contests to narrow the 100-plus delegate gap that Obama has established. His lead is likely to grow after Mississippi votes on Tuesday.

He doesn't talk about what I've been talking about in that respect, that the fifty state strategy produces other results even if a state doesn't 'go blue,' benefits for the party as a whole.

The article does talk about the scorched earth policy of the Clinton campaign, though I think it takes speculation a bit too far-
The former first lady is pum-melling Obama hard in the expectation that he will abandon his signature politics of “hope” for a dirty fight. Her team has accused Obama of behaving like Kenneth Starr, the chief inquisitor of the Clintons over the Whitewater affair in the 1990s, for demanding that she make her tax returns public.

The explosive subject of race is not far from the surface. The internet is buzzing with accusations that Clinton’s team made Obama’s face look blacker on a recent television advertisement challenging his foreign policy credentials.

Clinton mucked in by denying rumours that Obama was a Muslim – then adding the rider, “as far as I know”.
...
Benefactors hoping to be rewarded by Clinton need not despair if she does not make it this year. Some cynics believe that she is willing to undermine Obama sufficiently for him to lose to McCain in November, freeing her to take another shot at the presidency in 2012.
"Some cynics" is pretty vague. "Some cynics" also say she's a communist. Not to mention that to do that would undermine her own support in the party.

But there is some merit to the damage at all costs method-
Obama, 46, is threatened by a pincer movement from Clinton, 60, and McCain, 71, as they try to halt his progress with similar arguments about his lack of national security and foreign policy expertise. An Obama insider admitted: “Whenever there’s one person versus two, it always makes things more difficult.”
Though I will say, that's the cost of being the front runner.

I'm of two minds about how 'helpful' Bill Bradley might be being-
Former senator Bill Bradley, who is a leading supporter of Obama and ran for president in 2000, accused the Clintons of “lying” in pursuit of victory.

“The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they’ve got. That’s been their whole approach,” he said. “She’s going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different.”

Bradley believes that Clinton will stop at nothing to tear down Obama even if it boosts John McCain, who was confirmed last week as the Republican nominee: “The Clintons do not do long-term planning. They’re total tacticians and right now their focus is on Obama, not McCain.”
Kind of gets close to the issue brought up earlier with Clinton and a supporter making hay over Obama's admitted drug past and excusing the attacks as 'well, that's a supporter, we don't control what they say." I don't know that Bradley has crossed too much of a line (though calling them 'liers' isn't necessarily productive), but it could be an issue.

Back to what I was talking about with approaches. Where we have Clinton dismissing losses because of black voters or Obama friendly areas, Obama actually looks at blocks he's not winning and instead of dismissing them adopts it as a concern-
McCain has produced an advertisement comparing himself with Winston Churchill. Just as Britain’s wartime leader vowed to “fight them on the beaches” so McCain, accompanied by grainy film of him in pain as a young prisoner of the North Vietnamese, promises: “We shall never surrender. They will.”

The clip emphasises his patriotism. Karl Rove, former adviser to President George W Bush, observed in The Wall Street Journal: “The interesting intellectual phenomenon is the emergence of the ‘McCainicrats’ – Democrats backing McCain . . . In three recent polls, almost twice as many Democrats support Mr McCain as Republicans support Mr Obama.” An adviser to Obama admitted that his candidate was running into opposition from the kind of blue-collar workers who once supported Ronald Reagan, the Republican president: “Right now, Barack is not connecting with the children of the Reagan Democrats. That’s a real concern.”
Expect him to try and address that instead of dismiss it. Whether or not he is successful remains to be seen. For all the inroads he had made in Wisconsin there were stronger reversals in Ohio.

I got distracted a few times doing this, so it's probably incoherent. Sorry about that.

Aw man. I have some of his books, he is a very good horror writer. Now I'll never be able to read The Stand without thinking that the guy who wrote it is a right wing douchebag. :(

Same name, different dude.
Stephen King, horror writer
http://studenthacks.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/steven.JPG
Steve King, Douchebag-Iowa
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/K000362.jpg

Aw man. I have some of his books, he is a very good horror writer. Now I'll never be able to read The Stand without thinking that the guy who wrote it is a right wing douchebag. :(

Wrong King :p

Hail to the King, Baby! (http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n132/powerballadman/boomstick1.gif)

Kind of gets close to the issue brought up earlier with Clinton and a supporter making hay over Obama's admitted drug past and excusing the attacks as 'well, that's a supporter, we don't control what they say." I don't know that Bradley has crossed too much of a line (though calling them 'liers' isn't necessarily productive), but it could be an issue.

I've heard, on at least one occasion, Clinton telling an outright lie about Obama's positions. The Clintons have also been caught drastically mischaracterizing his words to the point that "lie" is a pretty accurate term.

It may not be productive, but I don't think the label is really unfair.

I've heard, on at least one occasion, Clinton telling an outright lie about Obama's positions. The Clintons have also been caught drastically mischaracterizing his words to the point that "lie" is a pretty accurate term.

It may not be productive, but I don't think the label is really unfair.

I think in that respect, though, neither of their hands are entirely clean. The disingenuous light that candidates paint their rivals keeps websites like FactCheck.org in business.

Haha. That's awesome. Perfect. Your "especially here" looks exactly like my joke post. I posted EVIDENCE. Your reply was, no, it's staying red. Why is it staying red? Who knows, because you didn't give ANY reasoning at all. This is a debate. Nuh-uh isn't going to fly no matter how many times you complain about us not accepting it.
And you went, as did CTOAN and did all that work, based on my premise that I never detailed, and you never asked for an explanation. I never asked you to go off on a tangent and try and prove my premise wrong because that would be an impossible task.

So you and CTOAN can debate until the cows come home, but you cannot disprove my premise(s) until two things happen....the general election in November, and Obama or Clinton is the nominee.

Good luck chasing your tail. :D

And you went, as did CTOAN and did all that work, based on my premise that I never detailed, and you never asked for an explanation. I never asked you to go off on a tangent and try and prove my premise wrong because that would be an impossible task.

So you and CTOAN can debate until the cows come home, but you cannot disprove my premise(s) until two things happen....the general election in November, and Obama or Clinton is the nominee.

Good luck chasing your tail. :D

Seriously? Do I have to explain Pancake Rain Tuesday to you yet again? Fine. Once more, with feeling.

Pancakes will rain on Tuesday.

You can't prove definitively that pancakes won't rain on Tuesday, not until Tuesday comes and goes and no pancakes have rained.

However, if I try and enlist your help in building a Syrup Fire Hose to prepare for Pancake Rain Tuesday, you can argue against the likelyhood of Pancake Rain Tuesday in order to explain why you don't want to waste your time building a Syrup Fire Hose for a Pancake Rain that isn't even remotely likely to happen. You can point out that Pancakes have never rained, no matter what day of the week. You can point out that while clouds are made up of a lot of things, pancake batter isn't among them. You could argue that even if, for some reason, pancake batter did get into clouds what would fall wouldn't be Pancakes but in fact pancake batter, and if anything we should be building a giant skillet to convert the falling pancake batter rain into Pancakes. You could argue all of these things as a reason why you're not going to waste time building my Syrup Hose in preparation for Pancake Rain Tuesday.

Your premise is Pancake Rain Tuesday. And we're not going to help you build your Syrup Hose.

And it's not our fault that you can't articulate your premise. We addressed it as stated. It's up to you to clarify it. It's your pancake shower.

I think in that respect, though, neither of their hands are entirely clean. The disingenuous light that candidates paint their rivals keeps websites like FactCheck.org in business.

Not entirely clean, no. But some are cleaner than others. And while I think it's all crap, outright lies piss me off more than mischaracterizations.

And you went, as did CTOAN and did all that work, based on my premise that I never detailed, and you never asked for an explanation. I never asked you to go off on a tangent and try and prove my premise wrong because that would be an impossible task.

So you and CTOAN can debate until the cows come home, but you cannot disprove my premise(s) until two things happen....the general election in November, and Obama or Clinton is the nominee.

Good luck chasing your tail. :D

Dude, it has nothing to do with where you want to keep the argument. You claimed Obama doesn't win states that will go blue. I demonstrated that they can and do go blue. The study further proves that fact. Your "nuh-uh" doesn't change that if you want to claim Obama doesn't win the right states, you've got do more work than just saying it. Keep running around the room with your queen in your hand, but stop acting like you're still playing chess.

Seriously? Do I have to explain Pancake Rain Tuesday to you yet again? Fine. Once more, with feeling.

Pancakes will rain on Tuesday.

You can't prove definitively that pancakes won't rain on Tuesday, not until Tuesday comes and goes and no pancakes have rained.

However, if I try and enlist your help in building a Syrup Fire Hose to prepare for Pancake Rain Tuesday, you can argue against the likelyhood of Pancake Rain Tuesday in order to explain why you don't want to waste your time building a Syrup Fire Hose for a Pancake Rain that isn't even remotely likely to happen. You can point out that Pancakes have never rained, no matter what day of the week. You can point out that while clouds are made up of a lot of things, pancake batter isn't among them. You could argue that even if, for some reason, pancake batter did get into clouds what would fall wouldn't be Pancakes but in fact pancake batter, and if anything we should be building a giant skillet to convert the falling pancake batter rain into Pancakes. You could argue all of these things as a reason why you're not going to waste time building my Syrup Hose in preparation for Pancake Rain Tuesday.

Your premise is Pancake Rain Tuesday. And we're not going to help you build your Syrup Hose.

And it's not our fault that you can't articulate your premise. We addressed it as stated. It's up to you to clarify it. It's your pancake shower.

No way, man. Until the election happens I can claim that only person who can win is Ron Paul. Cuz, no amount of evidence addresses the likelihood of my claim. Oh, wait, damn logic, what with it's giving us the ability to apply evidence to theories.

McCain is the best choice for president. Here is a list of things the democrats want to do and why they think they are good ideas, Then I will counter them.

Leave Iraq: The government isn't functioning right and troops are dieing for nothing

Well if you read your own history it took America over several years after the Revolutionary war to even establish a form of government, let alone deal with issues. Its's even harder to start-up a government if people are shooting at you. Today's guerrila tactics don't do things fast. Insurgents fight for a few minutes then go home because American choppers and fighters will absolutely decimate them if they stay out to long. Fighting is minimal every day and when it does happen our troops fight very well and kill several of them before they retreat. If they only stood out longer then they would be hit by real war machines like tanks, planes, and helicopters. Where do you think Al-Queda will go when we leave? They will go to D.C., New York, Miami and other places with planes and bombs.

Leave NAFTA: It takes Americans out of work and gives those jobs to Mexicans and Canadians.

More illegal immagrints would be over the border and have those jobs anyways but illegally. Most importantly is that Canada is our most reliable source of oil. Canada has alot of oil and they sell fair prices. No NAFTA, no Canada.

Government Owned Healthcare: give everyone healthcare

Not a bad idea, but bad outcome. It would put every Healthcare service in America down because they can't compete with the low prices. Millions lose their jobs and the Healthcare won't be as much quality.

To point to all these 60% states, when many of them are, to be honest, tiny vote numbers, doesn't say much.

except in terms of what is actually being decided.

McCain is the best choice for president. *snip*

This is as good an excuse as any for my reasons John McCain is a bad choice for President based on OnTheIssues (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm):

Abortion:
Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
Boasts of long voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe
Will continue do that as President.
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

Budget & Economy:
Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Said--then denied--he needed economics education. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Criticized "Woodstock museum," but skipped vote. (Nov 2007)

Civil Rights:
Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it. (Jun 2007)
Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)
Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)
Ten Commandments would bring virtue to our schools. (Jan 2000)
Confederate flag is a “symbol of heritage”. (Jan 2000)
Allow, but not mandate, school prayer. (Jan 2000)
Supports Amendment against flag-burning. (Apr 1999)
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

Corporations:
Cut corporate income taxes to keep jobs here. (Jan 2008)
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

Crime:
Judges have limited scope under the Constitution. (Nov 2006)
More death penalty; stricter sentencing. (Jan 2000)
More community policing; enough hate crime laws. (Jan 2000)
Prosecute youths as adults, but separately; explore sources. (Jan 2000)
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)

Drugs:
Stricter penalties; stricter enforcement. (Jul 1998)

Education:
Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)
Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)
Charters, homeschooling, & vouchers are key to success. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools. (May 1999)
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)

Families & Children:
Unfiltered Internet robs our children of their innocence. (Dec 1999)
Label violent media products like we label cigarettes. (Jun 1999)
Media Responsibility Act requires video & music labeling. (Jun 1999)
Violence in media caused Littleton shootings. (Apr 1999)
Rated 83% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

Foreign Policy:
Maintain Cuban embargo; indict Castro. (Dec 2007)
Situation in Pakistan very serious, but not nuclear threat. (Oct 2007)
Naive to exclude nukes; naive to exclude attacking Pakistan. (Aug 2007)
Overthrow “rogue” governments to keep Americans safe. (Feb 2000)
Russia: Sanctions until Putin exits Chechnya. (Jan 2000)
Cuba: No diplomatic and trade relations. (Jul 1998)
Support the One-China policy, don’t weaken it. (Mar 2000)

Miscellaneous:
Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Rated 15% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted with Republican Party 87.3% of 165 votes. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
Rated 33% by the AU, a mixed record on church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Voted YES on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)

Homeland Security:
Discard ABM Treaty and develop a missile defense. (Apr 1999)
Keep “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy - it works. (Jan 2000)
Voted NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Voted NO on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)

Taxes:
Opposed Bush tax cuts, but must extend them now. (May 2007)
Bush tax cuts fiscally reckless & favored rich;but keep them. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

War & Peace:
100 YEARS IN IRAQ "WOULD BE FINE WITH ME"
Iran is state sponsor of terrorism; no more evidence needed. (Nov 2007)
Iran is sponsor of terrorism; US strike if they get nukes. (May 2007)
Keep military option open against Iran, even if no nukes. (Dec 2007)
No direct talk with Iran; talk is over-rated. (Dec 2007)
Support the surge even if benchmarks are not met. (Aug 2007)
Did not read NIE before war vote, but was fully briefed. (Jun 2007)
In hindsight, Iraq invasion was still justified. (May 2007)
Congress has no authority to cut off funds for Iraqi use. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Leave Iraq: The government isn't functioning right and troops are dieing for nothing

Well if you read your own history it took America over several years after the Revolutionary war to even establish a form of government, let alone deal with issues. Its's even harder to start-up a government if people are shooting at you. Today's guerrila tactics don't do things fast. Insurgents fight for a few minutes then go home because American choppers and fighters will absolutely decimate them if they stay out to long. Fighting is minimal every day and when it does happen our troops fight very well and kill several of them before they retreat. If they only stood out longer then they would be hit by real war machines like tanks, planes, and helicopters. Where do you think Al-Queda will go when we leave? They will go to D.C., New York, Miami and other places with planes and bombs.So the democrats are right, but we're staying in Iraq because we're scared of Al Qaeda (which wouldn't exist anymore if we weren't in Iraq) and think that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead is better than a fraction of the percentage in Americans?

Leave NAFTA: It takes Americans out of work and gives those jobs to Mexicans and Canadians.

More illegal immagrints would be over the border and have those jobs anyways but illegally. Most importantly is that Canada is our most reliable source of oil. Canada has alot of oil and they sell fair prices. No NAFTA, no Canada.Then it's a good thing they don't want to leave NAFTA, but just renegotiate it to make it better.

Government Owned Healthcare: give everyone healthcare

Not a bad idea, but bad outcome. It would put every Healthcare service in America down because they can't compete with the low prices. Millions lose their jobs and the Healthcare won't be as much quality.So even though millions are uninsured, we should keep the current health care system because it's a huge bureacracy that employs people? That's blood-funded corporate make-work. The "quality" thing is totally unfunded, and the reality is probably the opposite, given that current quality deficiencies in health care can be largely chalked up to the fact that it's entirely private.

You know, to be truthful, I thought all this Obamamania would be over once people got it in their heads that they're choosing a president, not American Idol, for goodness sakes. Yes, he's an excellent orator, and kudos for not supporting the Iraq war in 2002, along with 20% of the population including moi. But that does not qualify one to be president, commander in chief of the United States army, leader of the free world, etc, etc, etc.

Momentum, electablity, blah, blah, blah. But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is how good a president or anyone else would be.

The comparison, strangely enough, that comes to mind when I think of Obama is Bill Clinton. Young, smart, a very promising politician, an amazing orator, voicing change, and frankly, extremely charming. So he won, since this america and charisma seems to be the single requiem to success.

But to be frank, his first term sucked. And it wasn't just because of the health care debacle. He clearly was unfamiliar with the system in Washington and how to work it. Nearly everything he attempted failed. It wasn't until the very end of his second term that things started to look up. Now, that's called on the job training.

And enter George Bush. Also very charismatic and the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with. Plus, he also promised change from the Clinton years, in rather different way, but the same equation, nevertheless. And that formula seems to be a winning one.

And once again, everyone just disregarded his lack of experience. And we all know how that one turned out.

So here we go again. Another charismatic, inexperienced candidate. Extremely likeable and promising change: the same old promise but with a new tint. You've got to wonder, what makes this time different? As I recall, all those people who voted for Bush were convinced that he would actually be effective as well. Ditto for Bill Clinton's supporters.

But this time's a little different. We're not in a time of peace and prosperity any more. We're in a two-front war abroad and an economic recession at home. Immigration, health care, social security. The problems are piling up and everyone's waiting on the next president to magically wave a wand and save everything. This isn't like 2000, when we were actually confident about the future. These are, frankly, grim times and this is a critical election. It really is about the future this time around.

And can Obama really do that?

Good speeches are nice. They shake up the world and the way we see things. Sometimes, they even help make the critical compromises. But they don't make peace in the Middle East. They don't save homes from foreclosure. And if history has anything to say about it, they don't necessarily make an effective president.

As for me, what really worries me about Obama is how little foreign policy experience he has. I recall when his campaign claimed his childhood years in Indonesia as foreign policy experience and the media just went right along with it, saying it gave him an unique view of the world. For goodness sakes.

You know, I too have lived abroad for several years in my childhood. It gave me a liking of sushi but not a whole lot more. I too opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. That gives me bragging rights to my republican uncle, but that's about it. I also speak 4 languages and been to 11 countries, having lived in 3 of them. But all that is hardly foreign policy experience. And it certainly doesn't qualify me to be president.

Not I could anyway. I'm only fifteen years old.

Now, maybe it's just me, but I think our next president, especially when it's so critical, should actually have a tiny bit more experience than a fifteen-year-old. Just saying.

I've watched politics for a long time, practically since the womb. And I love it, but it is depressing sometimes to see this country make the same mistakes over and over again. Is charisma and eloquence all that matters? Is the presidency just another popularity contest?

I hope not, because truly, I expect more from this country.

I don't really care who is chosen in the end, as long as things get done. I've spent my whole life watching the slick pols in Washington wheedle away and get nothing done. If John McCain passes immigration reform, then I'll be happy. If Hillary Clinton gets this economy up and running, then all the better. If Barack Obama ends the war in Iraq, then I applaud him.

But somehow I doubt it.

Where do you think Al-Queda will go when we leave? They will go to D.C., New York, Miami and other places with planes and bombs.


That claim is the same unfounded and undefendable fear mongering the Bush administration is using. Im not voting for a loony bootlick just because he agrees with the same BS Bush spouts. In fact, thats why Im voting against him.

*snip snip snip snip*
...Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)...
*snip snip snip snip snip*


Perhaps as a lawyer, you can answer a question I have about Roe v. Wade: why is it ever an issue in presidential elections? As a Supreme Court decision, can't it only be overturned by the Supreme Court or constitutional amendment, that is, any of the branches of government except the executive? I understand the president can choose pro-lifers to be justices, but there is not guarantee a president will even get that chance. (Of course, no candidate would say, "I promise to base my Court nominees on their abortion stance" anyway.)

Government Owned Healthcare: give everyone healthcare

Not a bad idea, but bad outcome. It would put every Healthcare service in America down because they can't compete with the low prices. Millions lose their jobs and the Healthcare won't be as much quality.

Well, for one, the plans are not government run health care but plans to force you to buy private company health insurance. I don't know why people keep insist on not listening.

Second, and this is part of the first, the programs will not create a government alternative to healthcare. A challenger is not appearing. Plus, competition would be good for the system, considering we already spend more per capita on health care than any other country in the world. Maybe we can divert all the money going into the bloated, non-competitive system and put it into, I dunno, education.

Dude, it has nothing to do with where you want to keep the argument.
Actually, it appears that you guys want to keep the argument alive, in that you keep posting your research in every Obama thread.

You claimed Obama doesn't win states that will go blue.
At the time, Obama was winning predominantly red states that I suggested will stay red. Until the election and depending who the nominee is, we won't know the truth.

I demonstrated that they can and do go blue.
Your demonstration that some of them did go blue during the Clinton years does not defeat my premise. I never said that those red states can't go blue.

The study further proves that fact.
The study proves that as "fact"? How is it possible for a study based on one poll to be equivalent to "fact"? Well you know that is simply impossible.

Your "nuh-uh" doesn't change that if you want to claim Obama doesn't win the right states, you've got do more work than just saying it.
I never made a "claim" as such....I stated a premise....my premise. Call it a prediction if you will. And I never claimed my premise was "fact".

Carry on.

Perhaps as a lawyer, you can answer a question I have about Roe v. Wade: why is it ever an issue in presidential elections? As a Supreme Court decision, can't it only be overturned by the Supreme Court or constitutional amendment, that is, any of the branches of government except the executive? I understand the president can choose pro-lifers to be justices, but there is not guarantee a president will even get that chance. (Of course, no candidate would say, "I promise to base my Court nominees on their abortion stance" anyway.)

you dont need a lawyer to answer that.

its pandering to a group of people who will vote for anyone who tells them what they want to hear even though they know the candidate cant do anything about it.

Perhaps as a lawyer, you can answer a question I have about Roe v. Wade: why is it ever an issue in presidential elections? As a Supreme Court decision, can't it only be overturned by the Supreme Court or constitutional amendment, that is, any of the branches of government except the executive? I understand the president can choose pro-lifers to be justices, but there is not guarantee a president will even get that chance. (Of course, no candidate would say, "I promise to base my Court nominees on their abortion stance" anyway.)

The Presidency has enormous power, both symbolic and concrete, that is relevant to abortion policy.

The President nominates members of the Supreme Court. Electing a President opposed to Roe increases the chances that Roe will be overturned. As we don't elect Supreme Court Justices, the election of the President is the primary way voters influence the Court.

Moreover, the President nominates judges to the federal district courts and federal appellate courts. These courts make decisions answerable only to higher courts. These courts also tend to make up the population of potential Supreme Court Justices.

The President controls the policy of the executive branch, which includes many agency decisions relevant to abortion policy. Among other things this includes the Justice Department -- which controls what laws get enforced, how they are enforced, and what arguments do or do not get made by the government in federal court, including before the Supreme Court. A White House against Roe can push cases and positions that challenge and/or undermine Roe.

The President does have significant influence over the legislative branch and its agenda. An anti-choice President can push for legislation challenging or undermining Roe. A pro-choice President can not only oppose such legislation, but has the power to veto it.

There is more, but I think the above suffices. I would note that, in addition to being a very real issue regarding the powers of the President, abortion is an important indicator regarding liberty and equal protection.

McCain is the best choice for president. Here is a list of things the democrats want to do and why they think they are good ideas, Then I will counter them.

So your support for McCain has nothing to do with McCain's policies?

Leave NAFTA: It takes Americans out of work and gives those jobs to Mexicans and Canadians.

This is not a position put forth by either Democrat candidate. They want to make changes to NAFTA, but neither is proposing that we leave it.

Government Owned Healthcare: give everyone healthcare

Again, not a position put forth by either candidate. Neither healthcare program involves government owned healthcare.

So your support for McCain has nothing to do with McCain's policies?



This is not a position put forth by either Democrat candidate. They want to make changes to NAFTA, but neither is proposing that we leave it.



Again, not a position put forth by either candidate. Neither healthcare program involves government owned healthcare.


Shh. Dont let facts get in the way of his reasons for voting for McRambo.

Well, for one, the plans are not government run health care but plans to force you to buy private company health insurance. I don't know why people keep insist on not listening.

Correction: Clinton's plan would force you to buy private company health insurance. Obama's would simply make it possible for every American to do so and to get a plan that would actually be useful. Both would require parents to have health insurance for their children.

Here's this morning's email from my brother:
Here is a report from someone we know in Houston.
They forwarded this from a friend of theirs from a
nearby very republican district:

"My precinct---79 percent of my voters were republican
crossovers--just so tickled with their scheme to vote
for Hillary because "McCain can beat Hillary"--or "I
do what Rush tells me to do". ...................We
had a few who were choosing Obama, so they couldn't
quite decide how to game it for the best advantage.
They also voted for all our weakest candidates up and
down the ballot--Gene Kelly won my precinct big, for
instance--they had it planned and organized."

[Gene Kelly is a perennial joke who has run in and
lost 10 races)
Yet another reason that hill should have gotten out
much earlier. Since their nomination is set, they can
afford to cross over just to screw up the other side.

interesting...

It seems like Clinton nor Obama will win this.

Sorry, all due respect, but I can't get too interested in a conspiracy theory contained in e-mail from your brother that has a report from someone in Houston who forwarded information from a friend of theirs who claims to have details of who voted and how they voted in one district in Texas. :(

I'm in Houston now and I just saw Republicans carefully organizing the takeover of Cuba. It's true. I mean, I just said it, didn't I?

Here's this morning's email from my brother:


interesting...

Sorry, all due respect, but I can't get too interested in a conspiracy theory contained in e-mail from your brother that has a report from someone in Houston who forwarded information from a friend of theirs who claims to have details of who voted and how they voted in one district in Texas. :(

Actually, it appears that you guys want to keep the argument alive, in that you keep posting your research in every Obama thread.
"Quit challenging my assertions in an open debate forum!!!"


At the time, Obama was winning predominantly red states that I suggested will stay red. Until the election and depending who the nominee is, we won't know the truth.
"Pancakes will rain on Tuesday."


Your demonstration that some of them did go blue during the Clinton years does not defeat my premise. I never said that those red states can't go blue.
No, you only said they won't go blue "'cause." Since there is no reason whatsoever to believe you we demonstrated trends that indicate that it is in fact possible that they will and conditions under which they might. You provided "Uh uh." Take yourself outside of it for a second-If one person tells you that your hand will get stung by scorpions if you stick your hand in that tree trunk and points to the number of people holding stung hands who have put their hands in there and notes the placement of scorpions in the tree trunk and another person tells you "nuh uh, you won't get stung," but nothing else, which premise would you buy? Would you seriously say, "Well, we won't know until I shove my hand in that tree trunk, so here goes!" No, no you wouldn't. Because the pro-scorpion sting person made a more compelling argument. See how that works?


The study proves that as "fact"? How is it possible for a study based on one poll to be equivalent to "fact"? Well you know that is simply impossible.
Because the poll demonstrates that without campaigning in the General yet Obama has leads. Your assertion that it won't happen, since unsupported, becomes Pancake Rain Tuesday in the light that those states are already leaning blue without any campaigning. Unless you give a reason and something to support it, no one is shoving their hand in your scorpion trunk (to mix my own metaphors.)


I never made a "claim" as such....I stated a premise....my premise. Call it a prediction if you will. And I never claimed my premise was "fact".

Carry on.
A premise is a claim. And we doubt your prediction and show patterns, conditions, and evidence to suggest that your premise isn't likely. Including your prediction track record so far.

As long as you make claims or "premises" on an open debate forum, expect them to be challenged. Expect us to use research and facts to back up our arguments, it's pretty much how it works. We'll expect you to continue jamming your fingers in your ears so hard you touch brain.

Actually, it appears that you guys want to keep the argument alive, in that you keep posting your research in every Obama thread.

Um, reread what I wrote. You want to keep the argument from going into territory that makes sense, trying to focus on a couple of states rather than looking at the overall picture. At the time you made the argument, Obama had won FAR more states that have a history of swinging.


At the time, Obama was winning predominantly red states that I suggested will stay red. Until the election and depending who the nominee is, we won't know the truth.

I know how you hate it, but we can look at evidence. I claim that John McCain will sweep all 50 states if Clinton gets the nod. Until the election, we won't know the truth.

By the by, we'll never know the "truth" in the way you claim it, since they won't both run.



Your demonstration that some of them did go blue during the Clinton years does not defeat my premise. I never said that those red states can't go blue.

Amusing. It's evidence they are likely to go blue again. We've since presented more evidence of this. You're argument relies on entirely no evidence that simply claims "they'll stay red because otherwise I'm wrong."


The study proves that as "fact"? How is it possible for a study based on one poll to be equivalent to "fact"? Well you know that is simply impossible.

Are you claiming, I've not established as fact that those states are capable of going blue? The fact they DID isn't enough evidence of them being capable of going blue. I question your understanding of what a fact is.


I never made a "claim" as such....I stated a premise....my premise. Call it a prediction if you will. And I never claimed my premise was "fact".

Carry on.

Nonsense. Now you're disputing what a claim is? Why don't we argue about the meaning of the word "is". Seriously, your entire argument has consisted of begging us to leave reason at the door of the thread. We're not going to. We can look at evidence and determine what the states are likely to do. That you want to make nonsensical claims and expect they'll stand until the election is just silly.

Here's this morning's email from my brother:


interesting...
Surely we can find a better and more reliable source than your brother's friend's friend who got an e-mail from a friend that a certain district had a 79% Republican turn out or that a district was won by Gene Kelly? Both of these things are actually verifiable. Not by forwarded e-mails, however.

BTW, I just want to point out that nowhere did I say that was a reliable source.
"Interesting" =/= "treat this as established fact" ;)

Interesting is just simply interesting.

Why are people still arguing with CH? Hes like an annoying itch, and if you ignore him he will go away.

Why are people still arguing with CH? Hes like an annoying itch, and if you ignore him he will go away.

Frankly, that's not true of CH or itches, necessarily.

Thats true. But hes just being a wormy little troll now. At one point, arguing with him may have had a meaning. But now, all he does is say "I am right, you are flaming me, Hillary Clinton, Barrak takes red states, you are flaming me, Obama wants to invade Pakistan."


No matter what you say to him, one of the above or a variation of it will be his response. And no matter how many times you prove his delusions wrong, he will still keep repeating them.

You know at this point, you're just plainly flaming. About a dozen different ways you've been asked to be civil. Learn to control your temper, man. Frankly, I'm more tired of you than of CH, mostly because your level of abuse is beyond the pale and it frequently is a substitute for an argument.

You've been riding on the backs of the more significant posters, but I've not found your argument any more compelling than his. Physician, heal thyself.

If you can't debate without calling Hillary a bitch and CH a "wormy, little troll" then don't.

You know at this point, you're just plainly flaming. About a dozen different ways you've been asked to be civil. Learn to control your temper, man. Frankly, I'm more tired of you than of CH, mostly because your level of abuse is beyond the pale and it frequently is a substitute for an argument.

You've been riding on the backs of the more significant posters, but I've not found your argument any more compelling than his. Physician, heal thyself.

If you can't debate without calling Hillary a bitch and CH a "wormy, little troll" then don't.



Frankly, on this topic, youre right. Early on I actually made arguements. But around...probably page 50ish I stopped. Why? Because whats the point of repeating the same damn thing over and over again? You may be content to do so, I am not. I might as well save my statements in a word format for this debate. Better yet, Im just going to leave this topic. Nothing new is really being mentioned anway.

And you know what? Repeating the same old rebuttle everytime someone says something, one that has been debunked might I add, is trolling. If somone is doing that, I am going to call them out on it.

Also, if Ive ever called Hillary a bitch, it was usually followed by a reason for that belief, like something she did.

And to your comment that Im "riding the back of the more significant posters" I dont know exactly what that means, but if that is somehow implying I cant fight my own battles...oh fuck it never mind.

Like I said, the messege Im getting is that I might as well leave this topic, which I agree with. Because nothing new is going to come of it.

So anyway...

Thoughts on the Clinton's talk of a dream ticket, thoughts?

Is it because:

A: They're raising the subject because they think they might lose and so they want to put pressure on Senator Obama to pick her as VP by creating an expectation?

B: They're hoping to persuade wavering voters that, given the perceived lack of experience for Senator Obama, better to put Senator Clinton in first if she's looking to pick him as VP and he'll be good in 8 years

C: They're covering both ends of the above arguments

D: Other reason that my limited brain didn't think of?

So anyway...

Thoughts on the Clinton's talk of a dream ticket, thoughts?

Is it because:

A: They're raising the subject because they think they might lose and so they want to put pressure on Senator Obama to pick her as VP by creating an expectation?

B: They're hoping to persuade wavering voters that, given the perceived lack of experience for Senator Obama, better to put Senator Clinton in first if she's looking to pick him as VP and he'll be good in 8 years

C: They're covering both ends of the above arguments

D: Other reason that my limited brain didn't think of?
C with a heavy dose of B. You can see it in the way she frames it. She'd love to have him as her running mate, but first she needs your support. The problem is that her scorched earth policy will make making him #2 kind of a sticking point in the general. "You spent a year telling everyone that he doesn't have experience, doesn't know what he's doing, what makes you think he's a good VP?" 'Oh, I'll train him.' She's going to end up not casting him as a VP but as an intern. (don't...)

But as Tom Daschelle said (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030902005.html?hpid=topnews) recently...
"It's really a rare occurrence, maybe the first time in history, that the person who's running No. 2 would offer the person who's running No. 1 the No. 2 position," Daschle said.

Interesting, instead of going negative as opinion columnist after opinion columnist has suggested he should do after losses last Tuesday (losses that will likely be canceled out by this Tuesday) instead he's playing to the refs, sort of, calling Clinton out on her tactics instead-
Eager to shift the narrative after a difficult week, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign sharply criticized the tactics of his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, charging her campaign with attempting "to deceive the American people just so that they can win this election."

Obama (Ill.) easily won caucuses in Wyoming on Saturday, but the two candidates had one of their quietest weekends of the campaign. Obama is to travel today to Mississippi, where he is leading in polls ahead of tomorrow's primary. Clinton (N.Y.) will campaign in Pennsylvania, which will vote on April 22.

Still reeling from Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas, Obama's camp sent out a memo to supporters titled "Doing Whatever It Takes to Win." It characterized Clinton's strategy for victory as "tearing Barack Obama down" and said her campaign "should stop telling the American people things that they know aren't true."
Clinton did that in a different aspect when she 'called out' the press for being too nice to Obama. But will calling out someone for being mean have the same effect as calling out the press for being too nice? Aprill 22nd is a llllooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnngggggggggg way away.

So anyway...

Thoughts on the Clinton's talk of a dream ticket, thoughts?

Is it because:

A: They're raising the subject because they think they might lose and so they want to put pressure on Senator Obama to pick her as VP by creating an expectation?

B: They're hoping to persuade wavering voters that, given the perceived lack of experience for Senator Obama, better to put Senator Clinton in first if she's looking to pick him as VP and he'll be good in 8 years

C: They're covering both ends of the above arguments

D: Other reason that my limited brain didn't think of?
It's definitely not A. Any power Clinton has to land a VP loss has little to do with convincing the democratic electorate of that.

Rather, I think Mark Penn probably conducted a poll that tells him it's a good idea for Clinton to say "two for the price of one". Also, it plays on American expectation that sympathetic young black men are best suited for the wisecracking sidekick role.

Frankly, on this topic, youre right. Early on I actually made arguements. But around...probably page 50ish I stopped. Why? Because whats the point of repeating the same damn thing over and over again? You may be content to do so, I am not. I might as well save my statements in a word format for this debate. Better yet, Im just going to leave this topic. Nothing new is really being mentioned anway.

And you know what? Repeating the same old rebuttle everytime someone says something, one that has been debunked might I add, is trolling. If somone is doing that, I am going to call them out on it.

Also, if Ive ever called Hillary a bitch, it was usually followed by a reason for that belief, like something she did.

And to your comment that Im "riding the back of the more significant posters" I dont know exactly what that means, but if that is somehow implying I cant fight my own battles...oh fuck it never mind.

Like I said, the messege Im getting is that I might as well leave this topic, which I agree with. Because nothing new is going to come of it.

First, please look up trolling. You don't actually seem to know what it means. It does not mean what you just said there. Someone can repeat the same tired arguments as much as they like. It's not trolling.

Second, take responsibility for yourself. CH has nothing to do with your behavior. I've seen you behave like this is several topics. With several different posters. I've seen you warned twice, one of those times I reported, and I've reported this. Sometimes, it's a bit fun to poke at each other, but it has to be along with good debate, or else you're just in the thread to create problems. It's not interesting. It's not fun. No one enjoys it, not even you. I'm not telling you to leave the topic. I'm asking you to figure out why it's necessary to call someone a bitch to make your point, or why it's necessary to call him a wormy little troll.

More importantly, your reasoning is suspect on both counts.

It's definitely not A. Any power Clinton has to land a VP loss has little to do with convincing the democratic electorate of that.

Rather, I think Mark Penn probably conducted a poll that tells him it's a good idea for Clinton to say "two for the price of one". Also, it plays on American expectation that sympathetic young black men are best suited for the wisecracking sidekick role.

I'm in two minds as to whether it's good strategy, weighing slightly on against - it doesn't feel like a good strategy even if I can't put that feeling into words right now.

So anyway...

Thoughts on the Clinton's talk of a dream ticket, thoughts?

Is it because:

A: They're raising the subject because they think they might lose and so they want to put pressure on Senator Obama to pick her as VP by creating an expectation?

B: They're hoping to persuade wavering voters that, given the perceived lack of experience for Senator Obama, better to put Senator Clinton in first if she's looking to pick him as VP and he'll be good in 8 years

C: They're covering both ends of the above arguments

D: Other reason that my limited brain didn't think of?

I don't know why people keep calling it the dream ticket. It combines their electability problems.

Besides, a dream ticket would have the VP make up for the weaknesses of the President, but that's not what this would be unless you count charisma. Hillary doesn't have 35 years of experience no matter how many times she repeats it. They're health care plans are similar. Their policies, in general, are pretty similar.

For me, I have repeatedly said she should be on his cabinet. Obama has charisma. That's not the most important thing for a President, but it's one weakness that can't be shored up by the right advisor. Obama also offers, I believe, a more positive approach. He wants to meet with world leaders without condition. He wants to break out of the typical Washington mold. I like that. And these are things that I don't think a VP can pass up to the President.

Hillary as a cabinet member does offer him some of her connections. She does offer him a shared vision. And sometimes it's good to have an attack dog on your cabinet. Someone with some ability to be caustic when necessary. When he needs a hardass, he'd have one.

I don't know why people keep calling it the dream ticket. It combines their electability problems.

Besides, a dream ticket would have the VP make up for the weaknesses of the President, but that's not what this would be unless you count charisma. Hillary doesn't have 35 years of experience no matter how many times she repeats it. They're health care plans are similar. Their policies, in general, are pretty similar.

For me, I have repeatedly said she should be on his cabinet. Obama has charisma. That's not the most important thing for a President, but it's one weakness that can't be shored up by the right advisor. Obama also offers, I believe, a more positive approach. He wants to meet with world leaders without condition. He wants to break out of the typical Washington mold. I like that. And these are things that I don't think a VP can pass up to the President.

Hillary as a cabinet member does offer him some of her connections. She does offer him a shared vision. And sometimes it's good to have an attack dog on your cabinet. Someone with some ability to be caustic when necessary. When he needs a hardass, he'd have one.

Well the theory relies on the combining of demographics (from the previously linked article)-
In the same "Meet the Press" program, Rendell became the latest member of Clinton's team to suggest that she would pick Obama as her running mate if she won the nomination. She mentioned the possibility last week, and former president Bill Clinton spoke of it at length during a campaign stop in Mississippi on Saturday.

"If you can unite the energy and the new people that he's brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small-town and rural America that she's carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it'd be hard to beat," Clinton told ABC News in Pass Christian, Miss. "You look at most of these places, he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force."
Whether that kind of demographic mongering works, I don't actually know. I would say at the very least not as well as advertised...

Knights of Liberty, you were warned over this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13500166&postcount=80). You got a warning TG over this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13500166&postcount=80). Yet here you go again: Shh. Dont let facts get in the way of his reasons for voting for McRambo.
Why are people still arguing with CH? Hes like an annoying itch, and if you ignore him he will go away.
Your one-line pinpricks at other posters in various threads create a hostile atmosphere that discourages debate. It's got to stop, and you are going to stop it for 24 hours while you think this over. (It would have been two days, but I'm hoping that your deletion of the most unwise of your posts in this thread is evidence that you're beginning to get the point.)

Speaking of discouraging debate,
"Quit challenging my assertions in an open debate forum!!!" <snip>
"Pancakes will rain on Tuesday."<snip>
We'll expect you to continue jamming your fingers in your ears so hard you touch brain.

CtoaN, there is a difference between summarising a poster's arguments and mockingly misrepresenting them. Your tone to Canuck Heaven is unnecessarily provocative, verging on flamebait.

Jocabia, you're still within the boundaries but your tone is more disparaging than your disagreement with his arguments warrants.

It's fine to pursue arguments, but don't pursue the poster to such an extent.

Well the theory relies on the combining of demographics (from the previously linked article)-

Whether that kind of demographic mongering works, I don't actually know. I would say at the very least not as well as advertised...

I see there being a very slim chance of HRC posting the types of wins she needs in all remaining states. As far as the blue states going red simply because of the candidate I disagree. California is not running red simply against Obama. I still hold that Obama is more electable. His ability to inspire and stay on message is what is fueling him. The $ he has gathered show his strong support from the American people, especially since they have come in small amounts from over 1,000,000 people. Don't count Hillary out, but she's way behind on the scorecards and we may get a split decision favoring Obama.

CtoaN, there is a difference between summarising a poster's arguments and mockingly misrepresenting them.

i don't know that there is any actual misrepresentation going on. mocking, sure. but not misrepresenting.

i don't know that there is any actual misrepresentation going on. mocking, sure. but not misrepresenting.

Well, I said this in the thread in Moderation, but CTOAN is pointing out the flaw in the particular style of argument. It's a fallacy, and the pancake analogy is meant to demonstrate him, even if it mocks him in the process. It's demonstrating the inherent flaw in saying we cannot examine a time-based claim until that time has expired. First of all, it's absolutely fallacious to say such a thing. Second, we're talking about a candidate that many of us are involved in choosing as the next President, so examining his claims for accuracy is necessary.

The pancake and scorpion analogies were chosen because they clearly demonstrate why we actually can toss out predicitive claims that have no sound support. It's demonstrating why he has to support his claims while he tries to argue that no support is necessary since reasoned debate about the future is impossible. He's undermining debate, CTOAN is promoting it.

So you are getting your opinions from opinion pieces now CH?

Going back to my premise that Obama would be hard pressed to win the red states, I came across this article (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/obama_and_red_states.html)that somewhat supports my premise:

"Barack Obama is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in red states, and beat John McCain in November," the memo.

So, is is true?

That depends on your perspective -- although here at The Fix our official position is skepticism.

Here's why.

Of the 24 states Obama has won, 14 were carried by Bush in the 2004 general election (For the full chart scroll to the bottom of this post). Bush won 55 percent or less of the vote in four of those states (Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia), while he took better than 60 percent of the vote in seven (Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and Utah).

Of the 14 red states Obama has won in this nominating contest, half of them haven't voted for a Democrat for president in a general election in more than 40 years. Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democrat who won Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia. Meanwhile, five states have backed a Democratic presidential candidate sometime in the past 20 years: Colorado (1992), Georgia (1992), Missouri (1996), Louisiana (1996) and Iowa (2000).

The vast majority of the red states in which Obama has won so far are located in the great plains and the south. Both are areas where Democrats have struggled mightily in the past few decades. The South -- in particular -- has gone from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican as white voters have defected in droves. While black voters, who comprise between a quarter and a third of the population in the southern states, continue to be one of the most reliable pillars of the Democratic party, there are simply not enough African American voters to comprise a majority.
The 1992, and 1996 wins were Clinton and he was aided by the fact that Ross Perot ran a fairly strong reform party campaign and cut heavily into Republican votes.

The 2000 win by Gore in Iowa is the last time it voted Democrat, but of all of them, it would be the easiest to turn.

And from the comments below, some words that I mostly agree with:

When you hear that Obama had more votes than such-and-so for the GOP in the primaries, you need to take those numbers with a mountain of salt. Many many people who would never vote for a D in November decided to cast their votes for Obama, believing that a) McCain has it locked up so a vote for him is wasted, b) Obama is easier to beat, or c) any chance to drive a dagger into HRC's heart is a chance to be seized upon.

My initial feeling is that Obama can make a few of the red states competitive, but external circumstances in Sept/Oct will determine whether he's tilting at windmills. For example, an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran would greatly help McCain, as would a terrorist attack on the US or an ally.
The ABC's of Republicanism at work?

hey, check it out, early obama coattails (sorta).
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/832895,cong030808.article

tl;dr version - democrat bill foster wins il-14, former seat of republican speak of the house dennis hastert that went 56% for bush in 2004 and that the national republican congressional committee just spent like nearly a third of their money trying to defend, with an assist from obama having his campaign help out.

oh yeah, i forgot to mention. foster is now a superdelegate. guess which dem contender he is backing...

So you are getting your opinions from opinion pieces now CH?
It is an opinion that mirrors my opinion....what is your problem?

Going back to my premise that Obama would be hard pressed to win the red states, I came across this article (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/obama_and_red_states.html)that somewhat supports my premise:


The 1992, and 1996 wins were Clinton and he was aided by the fact that Ross Perot ran a fairly strong reform party campaign and cut heavily into Republican votes.

The 2000 win by Gore in Iowa is the last time it voted Democrat, but of all of them, it would be the easiest to turn.

And from the comments below, some words that I mostly agree with:


The ABC's of Republicanism at work?

Well, let's see of 14 states, 5 of the states he lists went blue in the last four elections. How many would have to go blue in this election for Obama to win? One? Perhaps two. 10 of them have had a democratic governor in the last ten years. 9 of them have had a democratic senator in the last ten years. It seems even the author of your opinion piece isn't very good at making his point.

It is an opinion that mirrors my opinion....what is your problem?

And equally fails to evidence it. The evidence he presents demonstrates the ability to make statewide bids for the democratic party. That's the opposite of his claim. Meanwhile, it's 14 states out of 24 Obama won. So 11 are "blue" states and 5 by his own admission are up for grabs. That would make the claim that Obama wins mostly states that will stay blue, utterly false, according to his own evidence. He then further evidences that an additional five have a tendency of late to allow for democratic outcomes. Put that together and his argument is a flaming mess on the ground.

oh yeah, i forgot to mention. foster is now a superdelegate. guess which dem contender he is backing...

I'm just glad the special election is over. The campaign commercials were terrible:

"He'll raise taxes!"

"Nu-uh!"

"Look, here's a quote so obviously taken out of context! See, he'll raise taxes!"

"He's a Republican!"

Went like that for about a month and a half.

oh yeah, i forgot to mention. foster is now a superdelegate. guess which dem contender he is backing...

ZOMG! He's been bribed!

Don't look at me - I voted for Obama.

Another interesting Op-Ed piece on Obama, re the OMFG! "Barack Hussein Obama" is a friggin Muslim tack:

Obama and the Bigots (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html?em&ex=1205294400&en=41c5722a831a242e&ei=5087%0A)

tl;dr version - US voters are bigoted against Muslims. HRC should take a stand against such bigotry like JMcC.

It is an opinion that mirrors my opinion....what is your problem?

The fact that it goes against all other evidence presented?

ZOMG! He's been bribed!

scandal!

Don't look at me - I voted for Obama.

That may go down as the 2008 version of the 1980's "Don't blaim me - I voted for Bill and Opus"...

That may go down as the 2008 version of the 1980's "Don't blaim me - I voted for Bill and Opus"...

Look at it this way. I actually believe Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. And yes, it will be through something unethical and nasty and completely without any sense of goodness or merit.

A lot of people will be left with a terrible taste in their mouth, myself included.

At that point, I won't care if Hillary or McCain win.

And equally fails to evidence it. The evidence he presents demonstrates the ability to make statewide bids for the democratic party. That's the opposite of his claim. Meanwhile, it's 14 states out of 24 Obama won. So 11 are "blue" states and 5 by his own admission are up for grabs. That would make the claim that Obama wins mostly states that will stay blue, utterly false, according to his own evidence. He then further evidences that an additional five have a tendency of late to allow for democratic outcomes. Put that together and his argument is a flaming mess on the ground.
Perhaps that is what you make of it, but going head to head with just Republican vs. Democrat, the Republicans won them all, accept the Gore win in Iowa in 2000.

Again, you suggesting that his claim is "utterly false" is not true based on his opinion that it is unlikely for Obama to turn the red states blue. He didn't say it was impossible.

The fact that it goes against all other evidence presented?
It does? Show me the evidence that proves my opinion is wrong.

It does? Show me the evidence that proves my opinion is wrong.

Um...have you been blind this entire debate? All the evidence has been spelled out, throwing your entire argument into the trash heap of history.

Care to actually prove that only Clinton can beat McCain?

Perhaps that is what you make of it, but going head to head with just Republican vs. Democrat, the Republicans won them all, accept the Gore win in Iowa in 2000.

Again, you suggesting that his claim is "utterly false" is not true based on his opinion that it is unlikely for Obama to turn the red states blue. He didn't say it was impossible.

Republicans didn't win them all. They won them all when they won the presidency and lost them when they lost the presidency. It's not particulary complicated, but I fully understand why you want to ignore it. In four elections, four, not 10, not 50, 4 elections many of the states Obama has won are known to willing to support a candidate from either party, depending on their appeal. There is no evidence of a strong red shift of demographics. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite.

You want to dispute the evidence do so. But just saying, but look what happened in the last election when a crappy candidate ran a crappy campaign is really asking people to completely dismiss you. You can't base a trend on one election or two. When Bush won the presidency many of the states in the country had a "history" of going blue. One wonders what would have happened if he'd simply conceded those states before the election.

In 1992, much of the country had a "history" of going red. In fact, just two elections earlier 49 states had in a landslide victory. Perhaps the Dems should just have kept giving up those states. Seriously, I'm trying to find something in your argument worth anything, but if you're going to pretend like in trend analysis, 4 elections is too far back to go, then I'm going to just have to point and laugh at this point.

It does? Show me the evidence that proves my opinion is wrong.

Proves? I can show you that all evidence suggests your opinion is wrong.

First, it's been demonstrated that of the 14 states that Obama won that you claim will stay red, 5 are in play, according to your own source.

Second, it's been demonstrated that of the 14 states that Obama won that you claim will stay red, 10 have shown that they are willing to vote for a democrat in a state-wide election, a trend toward blue.

Third, it's been demonstrated that of the states that Obama has won, the bulk have voted at least once for each party in the Presidential elections of the last 4 terms.

Fourth, it's been demonstrated that recent polling shows many of those states could go blue against McCain. On occasion for either candidate.

So, what's your evidence against this? "Um, well, they didn't in the last election. And really, who considers more than one example when looking for a trend. Four examples? Pishaw."

Ugh, this is the stuff that bugs me.

First, Clinton who is pretty clearly running behind Obama suggests Obama should be her running mate AS VP. She says this twice. Then after it's soundly rejected by Obama, one of her aides speaking on behalf of her campaign says he's not qualified anyway.

Guy: "Wanna dance?"
Girl: "Um, no."
Guy: "Are you sure? It'll be fun."
Girl: "Yeah, I'm not interested."
Guy: "That's okay, you're ugly anyway."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/key-clinton-aid.html

I shouldn't be comparing a Presidential candidates to creepy, immature guys in bars, but this just fits. Sad.

Ugh, this is the stuff that bugs me.

First, Clinton who is pretty clearly running behind Obama suggests Obama should be her running mate AS VP. She says this twice. Then after it's soundly rejected by Obama, one of her aides speaking on behalf of her campaign says he's not qualified anyway.

Guy: "Wanna dance?"
Girl: "Um, no."
Guy: "Are you sure? It'll be fun."
Girl: "Yeah, I'm not interested."
Guy: "That's okay, you're ugly anyway."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/key-clinton-aid.html

I shouldn't be comparing a Presidential candidates to creepy, immature guys in bars, but this just fits. Sad.

Why go for blogs? CNN has an article on it:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/dems.campaign/index.html

"With all due respect. I won twice as many states as Senator Clinton. I've won more of the popular vote than Senator Clinton. I have more delegates than Senator Clinton. So, I don't know how somebody who's in second place is offering vice presidency to the person who's in first place," he said.
...

"I don't understand," he said. "If I'm not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president?"
^gotta love it

Why go for blogs? CNN has an article on it:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/dems.campaign/index.html

"With all due respect. I won twice as many states as Senator Clinton. I've won more of the popular vote than Senator Clinton. I have more delegates than Senator Clinton. So, I don't know how somebody who's in second place is offering vice presidency to the person who's in first place," he said.
...

"I don't understand," he said. "If I'm not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president?"


^gotta love it
This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes it worth watching this race all the way to the convention. You can't write entertainment like this... Two Democrats -- neither of which are especially electable -- tearing each other up. Great stuff.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes it worth watching this race all the way to the convention. You can't write entertainment like this... Two Democrats -- neither of which are especially electable -- tearing each other up. Great stuff.

I think you've got your facts a bit crooked there, chief. Clinton is not very electable, but Obama most certainly is.

Republicans didn't win them all. They won them all when they won the presidency and lost them when they lost the presidency. It's not particulary complicated, but I fully understand why you want to ignore it. In four elections, four, not 10, not 50, 4 elections many of the states Obama has won are known to willing to support a candidate from either party, depending on their appeal. There is no evidence of a strong red shift of demographics. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite.

You want to dispute the evidence do so. But just saying, but look what happened in the last election when a crappy candidate ran a crappy campaign is really asking people to completely dismiss you. You can't base a trend on one election or two. When Bush won the presidency many of the states in the country had a "history" of going blue. One wonders what would have happened if he'd simply conceded those states before the election.

In 1992, much of the country had a "history" of going red. In fact, just two elections earlier 49 states had in a landslide victory. Perhaps the Dems should just have kept giving up those states. Seriously, I'm trying to find something in your argument worth anything, but if you're going to pretend like in trend analysis, 4 elections is too far back to go, then I'm going to just have to point and laugh at this point.
I was going to rebut your argument, but I do believe that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Is it a matter of I say red you say blue over and over again?

If that is the case, then from the opinion article:

"Barack Obama is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in red states, and beat John McCain in November," the memo.

So, is is true?

That depends on your perspective -- although here at The Fix our official position is skepticism.

Here's why.

Of the 24 states Obama has won, 14 were carried by Bush in the 2004 general election (For the full chart scroll to the bottom of this post). Bush won 55 percent or less of the vote in four of those states (Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia), while he took better than 60 percent of the vote in seven (Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and Utah).

Of the 14 red states Obama has won in this nominating contest, half of them haven't voted for a Democrat for president in a general election in more than 40 years. Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democrat who won Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia.
In other words....they have stayed Republican ever since.

Meanwhile, five states have backed a Democratic presidential candidate sometime in the past 20 years: Colorado (1992), Georgia (1992), Missouri (1996), Louisiana (1996) and Iowa (2000).
In other words, the only time the Dems won these states was in conjunction with a strong third party (Ross Perot) splitting the Republican vote.

The vast majority of the red states in which Obama has won so far are located in the great plains and the south. Both are areas where Democrats have struggled mightily in the past few decades. The South -- in particular -- has gone from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican as white voters have defected in droves. While black voters, who comprise between a quarter and a third of the population in the southern states, continue to be one of the most reliable pillars of the Democratic party, there are simply not enough African American voters to comprise a majority.
Dems da facts Jack.

I think you've got your facts a bit crooked there, chief. Clinton is not very electable, but Obama most certainly is.

Indeed. The primary criteria for picking a President appears to be likeability this year.

I think people picture them as their personal boss or co-worker.

Obama seems like a great, straight-forward guy. He'll finish telling me the story later.

McCain seems like a straight-forward old guy. He'll fall asleep telling me the story.

Hillary seems like a fucking bitch-monster. No more wire hangars!

For some reason, some Democrats don't get that same picture, but I have the feeling a lot of other people do. Including most Democrats.

I was going to rebut your argument, but I do believe that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Is it a matter of I say red you say blue over and over again?

Do I really need to present my evidence YET AGAIN. You've been bitching that I keep posting it, now you're going to pretend all I'm offering is an opinion. (Which IS all you're offering.)


If that is the case, then from the opinion article:


In other words....they have stayed Republican ever since.

You mean seven states out of 24? Gee, that's most. Oh, wait, it isn't.



In other words, the only time the Dems won these states was in conjunction with a strong third party (Ross Perot) splitting the Republican vote.


Dems da facts Jack.

Are they? Hmmm... let's examine the facts.

Missouri in 1996. Clinton won by over 6%. 60 Percent of Nader's votes would have had to go to Dole in order for Clinton to have lost that state.

The election before that Clinton won by 11% again, requiring about 60% of Nader's vote to go Bush in order for him to pull a win.

Kerry and Kerry both lost by a 70,000 votes and neither had primaries the likes of what we've seen here.

Iowa is up for grabs by both candidates according to your article. And I didn't realize Perot ran in 2000. Or are you perhaps just clinging to anything you can find.

In 1996, Louisiana was a blowout. 12% by Clinton. Perot grabbed a measly 7%. But, I'm sure it was Perot's fault, no? Well, unless you're looking at REALITY.

In 2004, Kerry lost by 100,000 votes about of 2.2 million. Considering the turnout for the primaries more than tripled in nearly every state, I'd say that's less than insurmountable. But, hey, that's just me and evidence shaking hands again.

So we're back to the last democrat to win these states was, um, the last democrat to win the Presidency. Gee, golly, you sure do have some tough "evidence" to overturn.

Next.

I do commend you for finally offering something other than "no".

I was going to rebut your argument, but I do believe that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Is it a matter of I say red you say blue over and over again?

If that is the case, then from the opinion article:


In other words....they have stayed Republican ever since.


In other words, the only time the Dems won these states was in conjunction with a strong third party (Ross Perot) splitting the Republican vote.


Dems da facts Jack.

Jocabia has already addressed the idea of trend and how close some of those things have gotten, I want to touch on something I've been saying for a bit and Jocabia hints at with looking at thing like Gobunitorial races as well as senate, house, and state legislature races.

With Hassert's vacant seat going to a Democrat with Obama's endorsement we see exactly what I've been talking about. Obama has already run a 50 state strategy in the primaries that has given him a delegate lead when he started of 20% behind in the polls, a popular vote lead, and has put the former front runner who was riding a wave of inevitability playing essentially a desperation game. The 50 +1 strategy, of taking your base for granted and conceding your opponents base and only fighting the battlegrounds is the old way of thinking, it's the Red State/Blue State way of thinking. It's certainly not the kind of thinking that gave Reagan a 49 state sweep.

But since Obama has already run a 50 state strategy he has an infrastructure and active base in all of those states. Now, I'm not predicting that he will have a Reagan-esque landslide, but that kind of base puts McCain, who is having a hard time shoring up his base, on the offensive. Even with even money he can't match that level of organization even if he starts now. This forces him to play the +1 game, and not only in states that may or may not go blue, but in states where key governships, congressional seats, and state legislature seats might be vulnerable. This taxes already taxed resources to defend areas that he wouldn't have to against an opponent who is also playing the +1 game. We've already seen how the 50 state strategy worked in 2006. Obama is in a better position to act on that strategy and is not only in a position to win, but to win a democratic majority where even if Clinton wins it will be only a minor needle shift at that.

And again, to rely on the 'only win the red states' thing, we've repeatedly shown that he is able to win in just as many swing states as Clinton, and in the states that he doesn't win he has managed to place very close to Clinton. It is silly and undemonstrated that states will only vote for those they vote for in the primary and if their horse doesn't win they switch parties. You seem married to 'red states staying red no matter what' but then tacitly suggest that blue stalwarts won't be for Obama because he wasn't able to win New York or California.

The most interesting part of the whole demographic breakdown, besides Obama have a very large showing in many candidates, is that CH presumes the other portion of that (let's say 63%OB, 43% Clinton) white male Democrat, is somehow going to vote for McCain over Obama. That is a really big stretch, but I have to agree with CH when he says that only the election will truly tell. While I believe strongly that Obama has more crossover appeal (as he has shown), the truth will not be told until election day. CH, do you think the other portion (Hillary's portion) is going to forgo the Democrats simply because he's not Hillary? Even if there are redo elections in MI and FL, I think they only benefit Obama. The trend is the longer it goes on the better for him.

This is kind of 'old news' as far as this campaign goes, it regards a comment made before Iowa and the article (http://www.sunherald.com/209/story/414671.html) is from Thursday of last week, but it again illustrates what we've been talking about with Clinton and dismissing or conceding states and the problem that causes for her electability and for the party in general.

Here are the comments made before Iowa-
While on the campaign trail this past October, Clinton told the Des Moines Register she was shocked that Iowa would be ranked with Mississippi in anything.

"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," Clinton told the paper. "There has got to be something at work here. How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa.'"

Ah, dissing Mississippi, good times. What does it matter, their primary is in March, by then it will be a forgone conclusion...oops...
The unusually tight 2008 Democratic race has allowed Mississippi to attract attention from the candidates. In most years, the races have been settled before primaries are held here. Mabus said he believes Clinton never thought she would have to campaign in Mississippi, but now every delegate is crucial.

And so she has to write off another state and put the bar that much higher for herself in Pennsylvania as wins in Mississippi run the chance of erasing her gains last Tuesday.
"Throughout this campaign, Sen. Clinton has shown a disturbing pattern of writing off and criticizing states that she's lost or that she doesn't expect to do well in, including small states and Southern states," Mabus said.
...
DuPree said Clinton's words are a symptom of a larger problem within the Democratic Party.

"It's that kind of dismissive attitude toward the South that has led Democrats, independents and Republicans in the South who are opposed to the Iraq war, or who agree that we should cut taxes for working families, to feel unwelcome in the Democratic Party," DuPree said. "The last thing Mississippi Democrats need is to be told that once again, our state won't matter in a general election. Mississippi is the next primary, and she owes voters here an explanation for her comments."

Now, it's absolutely true that women have a hard time getting elected in that state. That's true. But it's just the 'that state doesn't matter' concession that relinquishes those states red. Obama might not be able to turn Mississippi blue, but he can tell the democrats, the liberal minded in that state that they do matter, that they can get out the vote. And while the state might go Obama, it might go blue in some districts, it might start a movement, it might start the wedge that opens that state up. It will absolutely do more towards that then telling the state they don't matter.

Rep. Steve King, a true "American Idiot." (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/10/obama-scoffs-at-rep-kings-remarks/?mod=googlenews_wsj) How the F can this guy make this statement and not expect us to mock and ridicule him relentlessly.

Rep. Steve King, a true "American Idiot." (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/10/obama-scoffs-at-rep-kings-remarks/?mod=googlenews_wsj) How the F can this guy make this statement and not expect us to mock and ridicule him relentlessly.

This is one of those things that is a 'cake and eat it too' for McCain that he can't do anything about. He didn't hesitate to distance himself from Bill Cunningham when he made similar remarks, he did it at the event itself. I don't really doubt his sincerity about not wanting that kind of campaign. But he can't stop people from saying things like this and while he'll distance himself from them at every turn, it's not like the people who listen to this nonsense are going to suddenly go Obama because he did so. In the case of Cunningham he did lose him as a supporter, but again, the bulk of that guys listeners are still going to vote for McCain regardless.

just for kicks, i made a gif of the presidential elections since 1900, using http://uselectionatlas.org/

conventions from there are red for dems, blue for repubs, and green for all the various third parties that have managed to gain electoral votes in the past. pardon the slight drift of the labeling. i literally just threw this together to see what it looks like.

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1125/19002004tu2.gif
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1125/19002004tu2.gif
Did you invert the colors just to mess with my head?

Also, how do I get it to cycle again? I tried refreshing but it still stays at 2004. EDIT: Never mind, it's cycling on its own...

just for kicks, i made a gif of the presidential elections since 1900, using http://uselectionatlas.org/

conventions from there are red for dems, blue for repubs, and green for all the various third parties that have managed to gain electoral votes in the past. pardon the slight drift of the labeling. i literally just threw this together to see what it looks like.

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1125/19002004tu2.gif
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1125/19002004tu2.gif

The colours are quite confusing. @_@

You can't base a trend on one election or two. When Bush won the presidency many of the states in the country had a "history" of going blue. One wonders what would have happened if he'd simply conceded those states before the election.

In 1992, much of the country had a "history" of going red. In fact, just two elections earlier 49 states had in a landslide victory. Perhaps the Dems should just have kept giving up those states. Seriously, I'm trying to find something in your argument worth anything, but if you're going to pretend like in trend analysis, 4 elections is too far back to go, then I'm going to just have to point and laugh at this point.

just for kicks, i made a gif of the presidential elections since 1900, using http://uselectionatlas.org/

conventions from there are red for dems, blue for repubs, and green for all the various third parties that have managed to gain electoral votes in the past. pardon the slight drift of the labeling. i literally just threw this together to see what it looks like.

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1125/19002004tu2.gif
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1125/19002004tu2.gif

Did you invert the colors just to mess with my head?

david leip, whose graphics i...borrowed, started doing it before the 2000 election, and just stuck with what he had already been doing. besides, red is the color of the marginally more left and blue is the color of monarchism or something.

Also, how do I get it to cycle again? I tried refreshing but it still stays at 2004. EDIT: Never mind, it's cycling on its own...

yeah, i fixed that. turned out that it cycled through exactly once for some reason before. weirdness.

There is more, but I think the above suffices. I would note that, in addition to being a very real issue regarding the powers of the President, abortion is an important indicator regarding liberty and equal protection.

It does; thank you. I only ask because George Bush, the supposedly pro-life president, seems to have done remarkably little except say abortion is bad. At most, he has turned a blind eye to things like the state ban in one of the Dakotas. South Dakota, if I remember correctly.

Ugh, this is the stuff that bugs me.

First, Clinton who is pretty clearly running behind Obama suggests Obama should be her running mate AS VP. She says this twice. Then after it's soundly rejected by Obama, one of her aides speaking on behalf of her campaign says he's not qualified anyway.

Guy: "Wanna dance?"
Girl: "Um, no."
Guy: "Are you sure? It'll be fun."
Girl: "Yeah, I'm not interested."
Guy: "That's okay, you're ugly anyway."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/key-clinton-aid.html

I shouldn't be comparing a Presidential candidates to creepy, immature guys in bars, but this just fits. Sad.

Well I wasn't a great fan of the strategy and I think it's just, well it's just going nowhere.

Time and time again I think the Clinton campaign simply underestimate Senator Obama, they seem stuck in some 90's timewarp where, maybe, these tactics would work, and mostly because the other side was using them as well so it created this tit-for-tat arena.

However, so far, Senator Obama has risen above it and the one time he didn't it cost him, once bitten and all that.

I must say i have watched this campaign with interest over the last few months in fact its very difficult to escape how mr obama is doing or what mrs clinton said maybe even mr mcain will get a mention if the former havnt proceeded to tear strips off each other which i can only assume is bad for the party, but the funny thing is im Australian, i cannot even imagine how many ads and campaign messages on the radio you must have to put up with when i seem to be bombarded with it (in a reported fashion), we recently had an election for prime minister and there was about 2 months of ads on tv, we all (compulsary) went on one day to vote and found out that night who got it, do any of you find your system a bit much or annoying at how long it takes and what the FUCK is a super delegate lol isnt anyones vote as good as anothers??

Heh, that's awesome.

Here is what kills me about CH's arguments. Bush and Kerry both got the most popular votes in history. Kerry got 1.3 million in GA. Over a million voted in the GA primary this year. IN THE PRIMARY. It's absolutely absurd to ignore that. A million in the primary in VA compared to 1.5 in the last actual election. It's unheard of.

The numbers are incredible. There is no reason to suggest the map is fixed and it's really a losing attitude that would inspire such a claim.

It does; thank you. I only ask because George Bush, the supposedly pro-life president, seems to have done remarkably little except say abortion is bad. At most, he has turned a blind eye to things like the state ban in one of the Dakotas. South Dakota, if I remember correctly.

George W. has added Justices to the Court that may vote to overturn Roe.

George W. supported the partial-birth abortion ban act, which Clinton had previously vetoed twice. The Bush Administration defended teh PBABA before the Supreme Court and got it's constitutionality approved despite a recent precedent against such bans.

George W. has done much to undermine family planning both here and abroad.

His impact is far from negligible. ;)

I must say i have watched this campaign with interest over the last few months in fact its very difficult to escape how mr obama is doing or what mrs clinton said maybe even mr mcain will get a mention if the former havnt proceeded to tear strips off each other which i can only assume is bad for the party, but the funny thing is im Australian, i cannot even imagine how many ads and campaign messages on the radio you must have to put up with when i seem to be bombarded with it (in a reported fashion), we recently had an election for prime minister and there was about 2 months of ads on tv, we all (compulsary) went on one day to vote and found out that night who got it, do any of you find your system a bit much or annoying at how long it takes and what the FUCK is a super delegate lol isnt anyones vote as good as anothers??

Well, the primaries are spread out. So since we've already had our primaries here in California I don't have to watch them anymore. And they only pelted us with ads a couple of weeks before our 'super Tuesday' primary. Ohio and Texas got it worse, they had three weeks of it, Pennsylvania is going to have to deal with weeks of being in the spotlight. After the conventions in August then we'll get the 50 state push.

A super delegate is an elected official in the Democratic Party whose vote isn't tied to an election of any kind put in place to make sure that the party retained control over their representation so that the person chosen was truly representative of Democratic values. They were put in place in 1982 after a particularly bloody nomination fight between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. They had their first test when they chose Mondale over Hart in 1984 and went on to on of the biggest landslide losses ever. I don't remember if it was an over-ride or if they went with the vote. I do know that Mondale was the establishment candidate.

George W. has added Justices to the Court that may vote to overturn Roe.

George W. supported the partial-birth abortion ban act, which Clinton had previously vetoed twice. The Bush Administration defended teh PBABA before the Supreme Court and got it's constitutionality approved despite a recent precedent against such bans.

George W. has done much to undermine family planning both here and abroad.

His impact is far from negligible. ;)

That's true. I guess I was thinking that he didn't outlaw it across the board, which would be the most anti-abortion thing he could do. But, as I myself said, he can't do that anyway.
Maybe I'm just so used to the guy ignoring the constitution for other projects he had, I naturally assumed he would ignore it in the case of abortion, too.

This is one of those things that is a 'cake and eat it too' for McCain that he can't do anything about. He didn't hesitate to distance himself from Bill Cunningham when he made similar remarks, he did it at the event itself. I don't really doubt his sincerity about not wanting that kind of campaign. But he can't stop people from saying things like this and while he'll distance himself from them at every turn, it's not like the people who listen to this nonsense are going to suddenly go Obama because he did so. In the case of Cunningham he did lose him as a supporter, but again, the bulk of that guys listeners are still going to vote for McCain regardless.


King, as was Cunningham, is a McCain surrogate. He cannot directly say these things, so the RNC has Republicans in "safe" (i.e., heavily pro-Republican) districts making inflammatory comments about Obama---who the RNC views as the more difficult Democratic candidate to defeat in the general election---on McCains behalf.

It's not like this is the first time this tactic has been used. This is hardball politics, folx. It's only going to get worse.

The colours are quite confusing. @_@

then my work here is done

actually, the map changes are genuinely informative, as they show a couple of party realignments as well as what can happen in extraordinary elections - and that those aren't even all that rare.

They had their first test when they chose Mondale over Hart in 1984 and went on to on of the biggest landslide losses ever. I don't remember if it was an over-ride or if they went with the vote. I do know that Mondale was the establishment candidate.

i think mondale had the lead already by the convention. but his near-total support from the supers sealed the deal.

The colours are quite confusing. @_@

Interesting fact: if you stare at this gif long enough, you can see the name of the next president.



Actually I just made that up. But it's interesting, all the same.

Do I really need to present my evidence YET AGAIN. You've been bitching that I keep posting it, now you're going to pretend all I'm offering is an opinion. (Which IS all you're offering.)
Congratulations....you finally figured out that I offered an opinion, based on gut feelings, and a bit of past history. And no, your opinion or facts or whatever you want to call them, do not trump my opinion.

You mean seven states out of 24? Gee, that's most. Oh, wait, it isn't.
7 solid red + 5 almost always red = 12 unlikely states for Obama out of the 14 red states won by him in the primaries/caucuses. The most likely to flip of any is Iowa, which went Democrat in 2000.

Are they? Hmmm... let's examine the facts.

Missouri in 1996. Clinton won by over 6%. 60 Percent of Nader's votes would have had to go to Dole in order for Clinton to have lost that state.
If you want to start with facts, how about that it was Perot, not Nader who took 10% of the vote in Missouri? At any rate, we can only speculate where Perot's votes would have landed had he not run?

The election before that Clinton won by 11% again, requiring about 60% of Nader's vote to go Bush in order for him to pull a win.
Nader again? Again, speculation only.

Kerry and Kerry both lost by a 70,000 votes and neither had primaries the likes of what we've seen here.
Kerry and Kerry? Increased numbers in primary votes does not equal increased numbers in general election?

Iowa is up for grabs by both candidates according to your article. And I didn't realize Perot ran in 2000. Or are you perhaps just clinging to anything you can find.
I didn't say Perot ran in 2000. However, Pat Buchanan scored 5,731 votes in Iowa and Bush lost by 4,144. Iowa was also close in 2004, and yeah, I did concede that state was most likely to swing.

In 1996, Louisiana was a blowout. 12% by Clinton. Perot grabbed a measly 7%. But, I'm sure it was Perot's fault, no? Well, unless you're looking at REALITY.
Louisiana, next door neighbour to Bill Clinton's Arkansas, where he was Governor for 12 years.

In 2004, Kerry lost by 100,000 votes about of 2.2 million. Considering the turnout for the primaries more than tripled in nearly every state, I'd say that's less than insurmountable. But, hey, that's just me and evidence shaking hands again.
Kerry lost to a very weakened Bush, but he still lost. Kerry could not pick up those red states that he needed.

So we're back to the last democrat to win these states was, um, the last democrat to win the Presidency. Gee, golly, you sure do have some tough "evidence" to overturn.
Unless a very strong third party candidate runs in 2008, it will be either Hillary or Obama against McCain.

Congratulations....you finally figured out that I offered an opinion, based on gut feelings, and a bit of past history. And no, your opinion or facts or whatever you want to call them, do not trump my opinion.


Wait, so you're admitting that, to you, evidence and facts do not trump your gut feelings? Don't you think that that's a little bit... irrational?

Congratulations....you finally figured out that I offered an opinion, based on gut feelings, and a bit of past history. And no, your opinion or facts or whatever you want to call them, do not trump my opinion.

And, golly, the fact that this opinion does not match up with the evidence is being challenged... on a debate forum. How dare we!



7 solid red + 5 almost always red = 12 unlikely states for Obama out of the 14 red states won by him in the primaries/caucuses. The most likely to flip of any is Iowa, which went Democrat in 2000.

Almost always? See, this is just willfully ignorant. Two elections in a row is "almost always". In fact, one of them has only been red for ONE. Hmmm... in that case then clearly I'm totally unlikely to ever eat eggs again. It has been two breakfasts since I've had any.

Do we generally consider a state "solidly red" that has been demonstrably going blue in their elections, including blue senators and governors. Only if you're ignoring the evidence. And state that will support a blue governor will support the right blue Presidential candidate. But, hey, it's probably a better strategy to just concede now. Why try to win every state? Oh, wait, there is that whole, we wanna win thing. Dang, that's probaby gonna mean giving it the ol' college try.

If you want to start with facts, how about that it was Perot, not Nader who took 10% of the vote in Missouri? At any rate, we can only speculate where Perot's votes would have landed had he not run?

Seriously, you're going to get caught up on a mistake. I intended Perot, regardless of what I typed. But, hey, cling to slips of the keyboard, but you're certainly not getting any points on evidence. My slip doesn't change your obtuse attempts to avoid the facts.

Yet, you're perfectly willing to claim that the Dem's can't take those states. Frankly, you're ability to speculate has been shown repeatedly to be lacking. Remember when you "speculated" that Super Tuesday wasn't a win for Obama and we "speculated" that it was a clear sign of a momentum shift. Hmmmm... yeah, you've got a great record for "speculation".


Nader again? Again, speculation only.

Yes, golly, no sense in looking at anything as silly as evidence. All we can do is blindly speculate. Oh, wait, that's not even remotely true. Pancake Tuesday and all that. If I hadn't worn shoes on Tuesday it would have rained Pancakes. But, alas, I did wear shoes so their is simply no way to know.



Kerry and Kerry? Increased numbers in primary votes does not equal increased numbers in general election?

Dammit. Gore and Kerry. Must not write and watch TV. Increased numbers are quite suggestive, my friend. But then that's us using evidence and all that silly logical mumbo-jumbo.





I didn't say Perot ran in 2000. However, Pat Buchanan scored 5,731 votes in Iowa and Bush lost by 4,144. Iowa was also close in 2004, and yeah, I did concede that state was most likely to swing.

Ah, so why did you list among the states that can only be blue if a third party takes major percentage. Oh, right, because you don't care if your evidence is misleading.



Louisiana, next door neighbour to Bill Clinton's Arkansas, where he was Governor for 12 years.

God, you're so full of excuses. That's not even remotely logical. By that logic, I'd vote for the governor of Indiana. Oh, wait, I don't even know who that is.



Kerry lost to a very weakened Bush, but he still lost. Kerry could not pick up those red states that he needed.

Duh. He was a shockingly bad candidate. That he could not win the Presidency after starting with about 40% of the population unwilling to vote for Bush regardless of the candidate, you have to wonder if we'd have done better to run a paperclip. I think we should have decided how to run Clinton based on how Mondale did. That would have made sense, too. I mean you only need to look at one election, right? But, wait, Clinton won against a popular encumbant and turned a ton of states. Good thing his campaign managers weren't as defeatest as you. They had three Republican dominated elections to look back at.



Unless a very strong third party candidate runs in 2008, it will be either Hillary or Obama against McCain.

How is this a reply to what I said? I'll say it again.

All you've shown is that many of these states haven't turned since the LAST Dem took the Presidency. Frankly, that pretty much shoots the toes off your cute little premise.

And no, your opinion or facts or whatever you want to call them, do not trump my opinion.

fail

fail

I'm just amazed someone can have been on a debate forum this long and think that claiming their opinion shouldn't be refuted with evidence will actually work. "Stop attacking me with your evidence and facts or whatever it is." I seriously choked a little.

"you are not entitled to your own opinion, but you are entitled to your own facts"

Fixed for CH's pov
;)

I'm just amazed someone can have been on a debate forum this long and think that claiming their opinion shouldn't be refuted with evidence will actually work. "Stop attacking me with your evidence and facts or whatever it is." I seriously choked a little.

I think that the quote that "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts" applies quite well here.

Where did people get the idea that opinions are sacred? That they were above challenge? That all opinions were equal, regardless of merit?

If that were true then debate itself wouldn't exist. The two people would stand at the podium and say, "I think this." "I disagree." And then everyone would go home.

Did we stop evaluating opinions at some point? Did we forget that we are supposed to measure the merit of an opinion based on its foundations?

Thinking something doesn't make it sacred and saying it doesn't preclude people from telling you why they think its wrong. If the evidence supports a different conclusion they tell you it's wrong. Calling it an 'opinion' doesn't put it on some magic pedestal, quite the opposite, it invites people to evaluate and challenge it. Especially if you state that opinion on a debate forum and extra especially if your opinion comes with a prescription for people to do one thing over another, like choosing a candidate in a primary.

This isn't 'rabbits are cute.' Thats an opinion that'd be difficult to debate, you either think they're cute or you're some sort of soulless creature walking around in a fleshy husk...I mean, or you don't think they're cute. But this is about an outcome, it's a prediction and we can examine the evidence for that prediction and find fault with it. Based on that weight we can either accept or reject that prediction. Calling it an 'opinion' doesn't put a bullet proof vest on it.

Where did people get the idea that opinions are sacred? That they were above challenge? That all opinions were equal, regardless of merit?

i blame the liberal media

Dick Morris to HRC: "It's over." (http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-over-2008-03-06.html)

i blame the liberal media

Those bastards! Have they no shame?

Just discovered this tidbit (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1680192,00.html):

Friday, Nov. 02, 2007

Last Wednesday, when the former First Lady won the endorsement of the powerful Association of Federal, State and Municipal Employees Union — which has more than 30,000 members in Iowa — Obama campaign manager David Plouffe responded with this: "It is a bit surprising that the union probably most concerned with state and local election results would support the candidate with the likeliest least appeal in red states. When Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will not only win the presidency but his appeal to Republicans and Independents will lift down-ballot candidates all across the country."
Walk the walk and talk the talk?

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats.
Sounds more like rhetoric now?

Wait, so you're admitting that, to you, evidence and facts do not trump your gut feelings? Don't you think that that's a little bit... irrational?
What evidence? Bring it forward. Show me that I am wrong.

I'm just amazed someone can have been on a debate forum this long and think that claiming their opinion shouldn't be refuted with evidence will actually work. "Stop attacking me with your evidence and facts or whatever it is." I seriously choked a little.
Cut with the dramatics. I have an opinion, and someday in the future, it will be either validated or repudiated, but until then it is still my opinion.

Dick Morris to HRC: "It's over." (http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-over-2008-03-06.html)

I read this earlier, and while I'd like it to be over it really isn't.

Florida and Michigan are going to have a redo. They stand little to no chance with the credentials committee, as outlined here-
Now, based on delegate allocation, it looks almost certain that votes to seat the delegations in their current iterations - both overwhelmingly favoring Hillary Clinton - will not exist. Examining the 186 members of the DNC's Credentials Committee, which would decide any contested delegations, the deck is heavily stacked against both states.

Of the twenty eight members DNC chair Howard Dean appointed, five have already voted to strip the states' delegates. Committee chairs Alexis Herman and Jim Roosevelt, along with members Ralph Dawson, Tina Flournoy and Janice Griffin, all served on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which decided the punishments for non-compliant states. The remaining twenty three members will likely follow suit and vote to uphold the rules.

Based on results so far, it appears that Barack Obama's team will control at least 68 seats on the credentials committee, after an estimate that is, if anything, generous to Clinton. Clinton's wins have netted her 55 seats, while states that have yet to hold contests -- Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennyslvania, South Dakota, West Virginia and Puerto Rico - have yet to allocate their combined 22 seats. With Dean's selections voting to uphold the rules and Obama's delegates voting in their candidate's interest, 96 delegates would vote to keep Michigan and Florida out.

While the committee is slated to have 186 members casting 183 votes (delegates from the territories are given a quarter of a vote, though all four voted for Obama, suggesting they will cast their combined one committee vote for him), Florida's and Michigan's combined 14 delegates are still allowed at the convention, but they cannot vote on matters involving their own states.

Even assuming Florida votes to seat Michigan's delegates and vice versa, the coalition voting against Clinton's delegations from both states will likely add up to more than half of the remaining 180 votes (with Florida delegates voting) and 178 votes (with Michigan delegates included). Obama can't use that majority to seat a friendlier delegate slate, though, as Clinton would benefit from Dean's contingent, again voting to uphold the rules rather than in her favor, and could block new delegate slates.

In short, the only ways for Florida and Michigan to find their seats on the convention floor would be for the Clinton and Obama camps to reach a deal and together outvote Dean's credentials committee faction; or for the two states to hold some kind of revote, either a primary or a caucus.
They played chicken with the DNC and lost. Their only hope now is for a redo, and then it's only a matter of who is going to pay for it. Both candidates don't want to write the state off and have the biggest interest in looking like they care. I still think that by the end of this week or the next we'll see them putting up at least some of the money for a redo. The only complications are that there is no way that Clinton will allow a caucus and the cheapest easiest way, mail in primary, has to go through state legislature in Florida.

Between that and Pennsylvania Clinton has the slimmest of chances of bringing the popular vote within reach. If Pennsylvania manages to create the momentum that she's been lacking there is an outside chance she could get it even closer and at that point make the case to the superdelegates. Will Obama supporters feel a little cheated? Yeah. But it is a legitimate claim and as long as Obama doesn't throw a fit most of them will fall back into line with Clinton. The independents and "Obamacins' might drift back and make her job harder for her, but it would be a legitimate claim.

Unfortunately, in order to do that she has to really do her 'kitchen sink' routine, which means she puts the entire party at risk because if she doesn't win she's weakened Obama in the general. Now, he might continue to be able to make none of that stick, but she'd still be hobbling him. Whether or not it's prudent for her to go for broke both for herself and for the party is up for debate. But she still has a chance and while she does she'll go for it. She believes this is her time.

Cut with the dramatics. I have an opinion, and someday in the future, it will be either validated or repudiated, but until then it is still my opinion.

Well, first, much of what you've claimed will never be tested. However, it will be held up against the evidence using this thing called debate, and the more you whine that we're not supposed to debate you, the more we'll giggle as we do it.

What evidence? Bring it forward. Show me that I am wrong.

We have. You keep ignoring it or blaming it on being the neighboring state of Arkansas (yes, folks, he ACTUALLY said that) or complaining that we won't know until it happens like pancake Tuesday or complaining we keep sticking the evidence in your face even after you gave a resounding "nuh-uh" or any of a million ways of complaining that you're "opinion" has been held up next to the evidence and was found lacking.

Cut with the dramatics. I have an opinion, and someday in the future, it will be either validated or repudiated, but until then it is still my opinion.
Again, "Rabbits are cute" is an undebatable opinion. "Obama won't win x states" is a prediction that can be weighed on its merits and based on evidence. No one bets on a football game based on some dude's 'hunch' unless they're that dude. The person who makes the most reasoned, researched prediction is the guy you bet with.

Just discovered this tidbit (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1680192,00.html):

Friday, Nov. 02, 2007


Walk the walk and talk the talk?


Sounds more like rhetoric now?
Um, no...

It sounds like he doesn't concede red states and will reach out to all of them instead of conceding them because they're 'red.' Seems fairly consistent to me.

Just discovered this tidbit (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1680192,00.html):

Friday, Nov. 02, 2007


Walk the walk and talk the talk?


Sounds more like rhetoric now?

You're absurd. So now that he used the term red states and pointed out exactly how they were going to increase Dem power in those states, there is somehow something wrong with this?

Well, first, much of what you've claimed will never be tested. However, it will be held up against the evidence using this thing called debate, and the more you whine that we're not supposed to debate you, the more we'll giggle as we do it.
You can debate my opinion all you want, but just don't tell me that it is wrong, unless you can prove it is wrong.

You can debate my opinion all you want, but just don't tell me that it is wrong, unless you can prove it is wrong.

done and done. your opinion is wrong and stupid. the evidence against it has been posted at length repeatedly across multiple threads.

You can debate my opinion all you want, but just don't tell me that it is wrong, unless you can prove it is wrong.

Um, I can show the evidence suggests it's wrong. That's how debates wrong. My opinion is more researched and more supported and doesn't require me to selectively look at states and elections at types of primaries and various other selective evidence. The evidence weighed together goes against your opinion. And in debate, that means I do, in fact, get to tell you it's wrong. It also means that the you'll continue to see people mentioning that you're flat on your back on the mat, or that we've captured your king or that we're launching ICBMs when we should be using pins or a dozen other ways of pointing out that you've utterly failed to give your opinion the slightest bit of credibility.

We've adequately demonstrated it's wrong to anyone actually considering the evidence. Go ahead. Find ANYONE who thinks you've supported your opinion adequately. Anyone. Go ahead. I'll wait.

done and done. your opinion is wrong and stupid. the evidence against it has been posted at length repeatedly across multiple threads.
Do you feel better now?

Um, I can show the evidence suggests it's wrong. That's how debates wrong. My opinion is more researched and more supported and doesn't require me to selectively look at states and elections at types of primaries and various other selective evidence. The evidence weighed together goes against your opinion. And in debate, that means I do, in fact, get to tell you it's wrong. It also means that the you'll continue to see people mentioning that you're flat on your back on the mat, or that we've captured your king or that we're launching ICBMs when we should be using pins or a dozen other ways of pointing out that you've utterly failed to give your opinion the slightest bit of credibility.

We've adequately demonstrated it's wrong to anyone actually considering the evidence. Go ahead. Find ANYONE who thinks you've supported your opinion adequately. Anyone. Go ahead. I'll wait.
You don't have any evidence. You have speculation. That is all you have.

You can debate my opinion all you want, but just don't tell me that it is wrong, unless you can prove it is wrong.

I don't get your endgame here. I don't. Your English teacher should have told you by at least the 10th grade that writing "In my opinion" in your papers was redundant and that you shouldn't do it. Unless you credit the opinion to an outside source it is assumed that the opinion stated is yours. We think you're wrong and we've stated the evidence that brings us to that conclusion. Do you really want us to go against our primary school educations to add an implicit tag so you don't 'feel bad?' I don't understand what you're going for here.

Do you feel better now?

Do you? We're not just telling you, you're wrong. We're showing you, you're wrong. We've continued to do it. And when we do, you complain that we can't actually analyze whether you're right until after it happens, which isn't actually true since your opinion involves the performance of both candidates.

So here is what we did.

We analyzed past elections. Not just two, but many past elections and showed that just going back for that way more states swing than you claim.

We analyzed past predictions by you. You're 0 and a lot.

We analyzed polls. 30,000 interviews and the best you coud do is go "nuh-uh". You complained some of them were too close, so we removed all fo them within the margin of error and your candidate still gets beaten.

We analyzed Obama's and Clinton's perfomance in the primaries and compared it to past primaries. Again, this definitely supports that Dem are more active than past years. Voters don't just come from the other party or independents, but from people who don't normally vote.

All the evidence supports us. Oh, but you do have "Ignore the last time a Democrat won the White House", "Ignore 2000", and "Ignore that state" and various other methods of denying the evidence at hand. Wow, hmmm... if only we had some way to show.

You keep saying we have to show YOU. We don't. Convincing you is not what we're required to do. We're required to make a convincing argument. We've done so to the satisfaction of every person who has ever read this thread save you. So if you're not convinced, it's your failing.

You don't have any evidence. You have speculation. That is all you have.

Well, I can only speculate that pancakes won't rain on Tuesday according to the same measure. Rational people accept speculation that is supported by the bulk of evidence. And we do have evidence. I think it's time to present some again. Hehe.

I don't get your endgame here. I don't. Your English teacher should have told you by at least the 10th grade that writing "In my opinion" in your papers was redundant and that you shouldn't do it. Unless you credit the opinion to an outside source it is assumed that the opinion stated is yours. We think you're wrong and we've stated the evidence that brings us to that conclusion. Do you really want us to go against our primary school educations to add an implicit tag so you don't 'feel bad?' I don't understand what you're going for here.
You don't know what I am going for? I am standing up for my right to have an opinion. I will not be shouted down or go into submission because you don't like my opinion. The fact that my opinion does not meet your high standards does not invalidate my opinion.

It wouldn't matter if everyone on these boards disagreed with my opinion, it still does not make my opinion false. It is my personal belief, and your ad hominems, giggles, and whatever else you want to throw at me, is not going to change that belief.

So anyway...

An interesting article I read, which essentially confirmed much of my feelings on this, that the Clinton camp have simply been performing poorly in terms of their messaging and it's outlined why here.

The divisions in her campaign over strategy and communications - and the dislike many of her advisers had for one another - poured out into public as Clinton struggled in February to hold off Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But even as Clinton revived her fortunes last week with victories in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas, the questions lingered about how she managed her campaign, with the internal sniping and second guessing undermining her well-cultivated image as a steady-at-the-wheel chief executive surrounded by a phalanx of loyal and efficient aides.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/10/america/clinton.php)

I think her problem has been that she's not managed to stick to a single, coherent and consistent message, to some extent they were sideswiped by the unexpected popularity of Senator Obama and I do think that the early losses gave him serious momentum.

She has a real issue in trying to gather any momentum now, sure she might win Pennsylvania but overall public opinion, I just don't think she can sway it back.

You don't know what I am going for? I am standing up for my right to have an opinion. I will not be shouted down or go into submission because you don't like my opinion. The fact that my opinion does not meet your high standards does not invalidate my opinion.

in my opinion, your opinion is wrong and stupid and invalid. what follows from combining that and CH's position is left as an exercise for the reader.

Not if she continues to cede small states because they're too 'red.' They're going to stay red.

Even the DNC doesn't rely on this strategy any more. I disagree.

Dean's big thing as chair is the 50 state strategy, and that new strategy is part of what helped the new majority in the house and the now close senate. Nope.

Where many superdelegates will be facing re-election they benefit from an entrenched Obama infrastructure even if the ultimate electoral college vote doesn't come out Obama. Nuh-uh.

This has a few benefits-it bolsters key seats, assists the opening of new seats, and forces McCain to focus his campaign resources in areas where they might lose ground in the house and senate stretching him thinner against a national campaign that is able to contest every state. *shakes head furiously*

This gives Obama a better chance to close narrow states or even open them up for bigger leads, making an already good looking map even better. No.

Again, this is a more compelling strategy than conceding half the country before the race even begins. Quit attacking me.

My comments are in red.

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

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

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

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

Now, my 2nd premise was:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can anyone tell the difference between my joke post and his serious one?

You don't know what I am going for? I am standing up for my right to have an opinion. I will not be shouted down or go into submission because you don't like my opinion. The fact that my opinion does not meet your high standards does not invalidate my opinion.

It wouldn't matter if everyone on these boards disagreed with my opinion, it still does not make my opinion false. It is my personal belief, and your ad hominems, giggles, and whatever else you want to throw at me, is not going to change that belief.

Exposing your opinion to reason isn't shouting it down. It's debate.

And on a debate forum, if your opinion, posted on same debate forum, does not meet "our high standards" then, yes, it does invalidate. And so ends todays "Debate for people who have been on a debate forum for five years but still think that if they say they are only stating opinion then it's not going to be balanced against evidence."

No, it just makes you losing the debate. We don't have access to absolute truth. So instead we debate what we do have, relative truth. Your opinion doesn't hold up.

Seriously, after five years, are you seriously going to bitch about how unfair it is that people are debating you on a debate forum? No matter how much you brag about your refusal to accept evidence, it doesn't change that your opinion has been widely shown to be contrary to the evidence. If you don't like debate, don't let the door hitcha where the Good Lord splitcha. Because as long as you're hear and posting opinions, we're going to either require you to support them or show them to be silly and contrary to evidence or both.

No one, no one has said that you can't have an opinion. That's a ridiculous accusation. Being disagreed with is not being shouted down. Nor am I going to 'feel bad' because I hold opinions to a high standard.

And again, a prediction like the one you're making is definitely one that can be argued and found to be without merit. I hate to have to point this out again, this isn't 'rabbits are cute.' Dissecting your prediction isn't a personal attack against you. And as far as your unwavering support for an idea regardless of the evidence presented...


There's another guy who has a prediction that he's clinging to despite all of the evidence, and no amount of disagreeing with him our shouting will change his opinion on it either. His war is going smashingly.

If thats what you want to go with, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure you understood the company you're keeping with that one.

Seriously, how do you survive here for 5 years and whine so much about people analyzing your opinion and holding to just a very normal standard of evidence? I mean, really, he's essentially telling us that debating his opinion on a debate for him is a violation of his "right to have an opinion". He's ACTUALLY doing that. I keep trying to make a joke here, but there's just the facts.

*Ninja quoting - and I gain on you in delegates, uh, I mean posts by one. Hehe.

So anyway...

An interesting article I read, which essentially confirmed much of my feelings on this, that the Clinton camp have simply been performing poorly in terms of their messaging and it's outlined why here.



Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/10/america/clinton.php)

I think her problem has been that she's not managed to stick to a single, coherent and consistent message, to some extent they were sideswiped by the unexpected popularity of Senator Obama and I do think that the early losses gave him serious momentum.

She has a real issue in trying to gather any momentum now, sure she might win Pennsylvania but overall public opinion, I just don't think she can sway it back.

I think that that certainly has a whole lot of truth to it. I think she really underestimated Obama and the power that grassroots organization would have. She's trying to run this establishment campaign when the very nature of the establishment is changing. She was blindsided (even though plenty of people saw this coming) and has scrambled to run a much longer and more contested campaign than she was prepared for.

There was a funny crack on SNL's weekend update about Clinton saying after 33 states she's just getting warmed up, "How can you be ready at day one when it takes you 33 primaries to 'warm up?'"

It's actually admirable to put people with different opinions under the same roof, but only if you're able to lead that group. If you can't you end up looking bad. Not that Obama hasn't had his own problems with advisors, but I'd argue that more has been made of that than is really there.

*Ninja quoting - and I gain on you in delegates, uh, I mean posts by one. Hehe.

You bastard! Wait, I'm back! I'll always have the edge because I make a point to reply to new subject posts in the hope that the conversation will move past this back and forth.

I honestly think he's goading us at this point. If he stamps his foot enough times our responses will get colorful enough that the seagulls will return, which is why I decided to remove what I wrote. I have to remind myself that it's the third party audience that we're really playing to. I'm not going to get my first ban because of this.

You don't know what I am going for? I am standing up for my right to have an opinion. I will not be shouted down or go into submission because you don't like my opinion. The fact that my opinion does not meet your high standards does not invalidate my opinion.
You're right. it doesn't. Reality does that.

You have a right to an opinion, and we have a right to disagree with that opinion. The whole point of being in this debate forum is to convince us that your opinion is the right one, or to discover that your opinion is wrong and replace it. So far you have failed to do either.

I have to remind myself that it's the third party audience that we're really playing to.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/167.gif

You bastard! Wait, I'm back! I'll always have the edge because I make a point to reply to new subject posts in the hope that the conversation will move past this back and forth.

I honestly think he's goading us at this point. If he stamps his foot enough times our responses will get colorful enough that the seagulls will return, which is why I decided to remove what I wrote. I have to remind myself that it's the third party audience that we're really playing to. I'm not going to get my first ban because of this.

She wasn't really warning us, you know. She's asking posters who have been around a while and have a history in helping to keep the site doing what the site is meant to do, to make her life easier.

And, for my money, that's much better than a threat.

She said plainly your tactics are valid debate but that they're overkill (suggesting we're popping little argument balloons with ICBMs rather than pins) and that overkill is encouraging a dogpile or scaring new posters, posters who actually might want to encourage debate, out of the thread. And, frankly, she has a valid point. The problem is that I'm not going to let the kind of dangerous claims that every opinion is equal until it's be absolutely proven right or wrong to persist. Frankly, it's the same damnable argument that makes people think it's okay for a public servant to be actively working to stop the contagion of homosexuality and whatnot.

I don't care who's saying it. All opinions are not equal. Some are supported by evidence. Some are not. And still others are utter lunacy. The value of debate isn't just in some kind of internet contest but to explore where a particular opinion lands. The ones expressed by CH have been demonstrably laid into the unsupported by evidence pile. And the one that says that to expose an opinion to reason is "shouting it down" and violating his 'right to have an opinion" falls in the utter lunacy pile.

Regardless of who wins, debate occurred here and it's a good thing.

If there are new posters looking on, don't learn from this that if you're wrong you'll be abused. The fact is that some light abuse happens whether you're right OR you're wrong. People here are sarcastic and weird and mostly friendly once you realize that only a select few take all of that very seriously. CTOAN and I have been at each other's throats before and I'd buy him a beer if I met him. CH, too. And if you look REALLY hard, you'll even find me defending CH on occasion.

Your opinions are welcome. Your questions are welcome. Your insight is welcome. But expect it to be held up to the light and examined for holes. It's not personal. It just how we all learn and even have a little fun.

Oh, and Fass, which has nothing to with my argument, but I know he searches for his name and I think it's funny. (For the record, I do it to on occasion which is why I don't like Straughn anymore.)

She wasn't really warning us, you know. She's asking posters who have been around a while and have a history in helping to keep the site doing what the site is meant to do, to make her life easier.

And, for my money, that's much better than a threat.

She said plainly your tactics are valid debate but that they're overkill (suggesting we're popping little argument balloons with ICBMs rather than pins) and that overkill is encouraging a dogpile or scaring new posters, posters who actually might want to encourage debate, out of the thread. And, frankly, she has a valid point. The problem is that I'm not going to let the kind of dangerous claims that every opinion is equal until it's be absolutely proven right or wrong to persist. Frankly, it's the same damnable argument that makes people think it's okay for a public servant to be actively working to stop the contagion of homosexuality and whatnot.

I don't care who's saying it. All opinions are not equal. Some are supported by evidence. Some are not. And still others are utter lunacy. The value of debate isn't just in some kind of internet contest but to explore where a particular opinion lands. The ones expressed by CH have been demonstrably laid into the unsupported by evidence pile. And the one that says that to expose an opinion to reason is "shouting it down" and violating his 'right to have an opinion" falls in the utter lunacy pile.

Regardless of who wins, debate occurred here and it's a good thing.

.

I agree 100%, and I only took out the last of my rebuttals to that assertion and then only because we more or less said the same thing, which is I think part of what she was talking about. Despite her last visit's warning there are already a little flurry of one and two line posts that just dig springing up around us and since i felt our point had been made I took out the one I felt was superfluous.

The fact that it adds edit texts after you quoted and you don't know until you post weirds me out.
If there are new posters looking on, don't learn from this that if you're wrong you'll be abused. The fact is that some light abuse happens whether you're right OR you're wrong. People here are sarcastic and weird and mostly friendly once you realize that only a select few take all of that very seriously. CTOAN and I have been at each other's throats before and I'd buy him a beer if I met him. CH, too. And if you look REALLY hard, you'll even find me defending CH on occasion. Your opinions are welcome. Your questions are welcome. Your insight is welcome. But expect it to be held up to the light and examined for holes. It's not personal. It just how we all learn and even have a little fun
EDIT: If you're the one I'm thinking of (I'm shitty with names so I hardly remember anyone from thing to thing) I think that one even had its own thread...ah, good times...

And of course I'd smoke bowls with the lot of you.

Get a room you two.

Get a room you two.

It's sickening, isn't it?

(For the record, I do it to on occasion which is why I don't like Straughn anymore.)
Verily, you wound me.
You don't hate me 'cuz of my sig? Which ... your line here ...
'sides, i ain't talked smack 'bout you in a long while, if ever. Do i have to get you some flowers or something?
Or are you talking about arguing or something?
Finally, I look as pretty as I feel!

It's sickening, isn't it?

Nauseating even - I do think that the entire speculation on who would take which state has been, well in some senses it would have been better to create a Jocabia/CToaN/Canuck, possibly chuck in FS for good measure, thread, open to anyone who wanted to jump in, and then create a separate thread for any other discussion points.

I'm not a Mod alas, so I can't do this or I would have, but I do have their addresses now so expect some disappearances and a New World Order in town.

Then I'll get my 1000th post back

:mad:

Nauseating even - I do think that the entire speculation on who would take which state has been, well in some senses it would have been better to create a Jocabia/CToaN/Canuck, possibly chuck in FS for good measure, thread, open to anyone who wanted to jump in, and then create a separate thread for any other discussion points.

I'm not a Mod alas, so I can't do this or I would have, but I do have their addresses now so expect some disappearances and a New World Order in town.

Then I'll get my 1000th post back

:mad:

I address other posts, dagnabit. And I even try to introduce new points on the topic. I got other notes on this trumpet, dammit!

I address other posts, dagnabit. And I even try to introduce new points on the topic. I got other notes on this trumpet, dammit!

Now now, don't get your enormous beard in a tizzy - simply saying that one particular aspect of debate has dominated and therefore merited its own thread, all your other little posts and comments have been noted and we're all very proud of you.

*pats head, let's out to play in garden*

Verily, you wound me.
You don't hate me 'cuz of my sig? Which ... your line here ...
'sides, i ain't talked smack 'bout you in a long while, if ever. Do i have to get you some flowers or something?
Or are you talking about arguing or something?

I was joking. I'm pointing out to any new posters lurking that we may poke each other, but for the most part, we're friends of some sort or another.

Nauseating even - I do think that the entire speculation on who would take which state has been, well in some senses it would have been better to create a Jocabia/CToaN/Canuck, possibly chuck in FS for good measure, thread, open to anyone who wanted to jump in, and then create a separate thread for any other discussion points.

I'm not a Mod alas, so I can't do this or I would have, but I do have their addresses now so expect some disappearances and a New World Order in town.

Then I'll get my 1000th post back

:mad:

Well, I think what frustrates some is that the stuff on Clinton doesn't really seem new to most of us so we tend to go, hmmmmm... interesting, thanks. And move on.

The other stuff is mostly opinion pieces and the like. I've not seen anything that sparked any substantial debate. It's like the "Hussein" thing someone just created a thread for. Does anyone really care? There's nothing to debate. Some idiot made the comment. Everyone chastised him for it and that's it. In the end I think the new topics are dying down because it's obvious the firewall didn't work and every day seems to be just dragging out one of two events, Obama wins or the top dogs in the part decide that the more "in" candidate should have it. Now, that's not the only way it COULD go, but it's starting to look pretty set, so it's just gonna be petty stuff at this point.

Well, I think what frustrates some is that the stuff on Clinton doesn't really seem new to most of us so we tend to go, hmmmmm... interesting, thanks. And move on.

The other stuff is mostly opinion pieces and the like. I've not seen anything that sparked any substantial debate. It's like the "Hussein" think someone just created a thread for. Does anyone really care? There's nothing to debate. Some idiot made the comment. Everyone chastised him for it and that's it. In the end I think the new topics are dying down because it's obvious the firewall didn't work and every day seems to be just dragging out one of two events, Obama wins or the top dogs in the part decide that the more "in" candidate should have it. Now, that's not the only way it COULD go, but it's starting to look pretty set, so it's just gonna be petty stuff at this point.

Mmm, we're digressing a bit but I've noticed that what seems to happen is this.

CH makes a riposte - or whatever one wants to call it - you, CToaN and he go at it for 2-3 pages before he leaves off, a bit of discussion on how roundly he's just been defeated and then...

Then others tend to posts opinions here and there and there's some interesting discussion, a recent example started with your blog post on Senator Clinton saying Senator Obama hadn't passed the test.

You then see a variety of posters chipping in but them up pops CH again and another 2-3 pages are lost and what seemed to be the start of a new tack is lost.

So I don't really agree that there's no interest, I feel that interest just dies in a subject when the central debate rages on again.

I was joking. I'm pointing out to any new posters lurking that we may poke each other, but for the most part, we're friends of some sort or another.

Yeah, that's the hardest part. You're able to argue quite well, and i usually don't disagree with you, which kinda defeats the purpose in most cases. :)
And apparently, puppets can't argue with people vociferously either if they cut each other up in some way that makes people think you're serious. Well, occasionally. :p

Mmm, we're digressing a bit but I've noticed that what seems to happen is this.

CH makes a riposte - or whatever one wants to call it - you, CToaN and he go at it for 2-3 pages before he leaves off, a bit of discussion on how roundly he's just been defeated and then...

Then others tend to posts opinions here and there and there's some interesting discussion, a recent example started with your blog post on Senator Clinton saying Senator Obama hadn't passed the test.

You then see a variety of posters chipping in but them up pops CH again and another 2-3 pages are lost and what seemed to be the start of a new tack is lost.

So I don't really agree that there's no interest, I feel that interest just dies in a subject when the central debate rages on again.


I can only speak for me. If I find something interesting or I think it needs settling, I'll keep pressing it. You know this. And I just, well, it's all the same stuff.

The article you just posted has some stuff that actually makes me like her more. Most of it, seemed like an old article because it was so, well, done. It feels like people are running out of things to say.

And most of the time when we bring up something even a little bit up for debate, we all state what we think, why we think it and some bend, some don't, but we find a reasonable place to sit. And if I didn't feel that way, I'd make sure I brought it back. If you don't feel that way. Go back and pick up one of the posts and bring it back, like CTOAN and I keep doing with the Obama wins the wrong states nonsense.

I can only speak for me. If I find something interesting or I think it needs settling, I'll keep pressing it. You know this. And I just, well, it's all the same stuff.

The article you just posted has some stuff that actually makes me like her more. Most of it, seemed like an old article because it was so, well, done. It feels like people are running out of things to say.

And most of the time when we bring up something even a little bit up for debate, we all state what we think, why we think it and some bend, some don't, but we find a reasonable place to sit. And if I didn't feel that way, I'd make sure I brought it back. If you don't feel that way. Go back and pick up one of the posts and bring it back, like CTOAN and I keep doing with the Obama wins the wrong states nonsense.

S'all fair enough, I expect a certain lull now to be honest, mirroring the actual nomination process - as you correctly point out, there's not much new coming out, I guess if Michigan and Florida become active again it'll flare up once more.

This (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/10/obama-leaked-photo-ad-signal-republican-tactics-from-clinton-team/) is kind of dissapointing. I've talked a bit about his counter tactic of calling Clinton out on her tactics, but this little bit is frustrating-
“When in the midst of a campaign you decide to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent because you’re behind, and you start — your campaign starts leaking photographs of me when I’m traveling overseas wearing the native clothes of those folks to make people afraid, and then you run an ad talking about who’s gonna answer the phone at three in the morning — an ad straight out of the Republican playbook — that’s not real change,” Obama told voters at a Mississippi campaign event Monday night.
...
"…I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo. So I think that's something that we can set aside," Obama said at the Ohio debate late last month — a remark re-circulated by the Clinton campaign Monday night.
There's a bit of semantic gaming here-
In a statement, the Clinton team attributed Obama’s Jackson remarks to his losses in last week’s primaries, and pointed to the Ohio comment, in which he seemed to absolve Clinton herself, though not her campaign, of responsibility for the photo’s distribution.
Even if she did distribute the photo this is a loss for him because it gives credence to the fact that it's something to be ashamed of when in fact it's perfectly common for visiting politicians to wear traditional dress of the place they're visiting.

This (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/10/obama-leaked-photo-ad-signal-republican-tactics-from-clinton-team/) is kind of dissapointing. I've talked a bit about his counter tactic of calling Clinton out on her tactics, but this little bit is frustrating-

There's a bit of semantic gaming here-

Even if she did distribute the photo this is a loss for him because it gives credence to the fact that it's something to be ashamed of when in fact it's perfectly common for visiting politicians to wear traditional dress of the place they're visiting.

I don't think he's implying he's ashamed of it, or should be. I think he's implying that the clinton campaign is using it to sell fear, which is essentially what they are using it for. It has nothing to do with the reality of what happened and everything to do with the perception, and the clinton campaign are strengthening that perception by circulating the photo in the context in which they are circulating it.

What the photo is actually about is not given in the context while this is being circulated. There is currently a group of people who are wrongly afraid of muslims and wrongly think Obama is a muslim and by circulating this picture in the way it was done feeds that hysteria.

I don't think he's implying he's ashamed of it, or should be. I think he's implying that the clinton campaign is using it to sell fear, which is essentially what they are using it for. It has nothing to do with the reality of what happened and everything to do with the perception, and the clinton campaign are strengthening that perception by circulating the photo in the context in which they are circulating it.

What the photo is actually about is not given in the context while this is being circulated. There is currently a group of people who are wrongly afraid of muslims and wrongly think Obama is a muslim and by circulating this picture in the way it was done feeds that hysteria.

The response to the photo should have been, "What? It's not uncommon for visiting dignitaries to wear the dress of the place they're visiting," and not validate the fear mongering by not even acknowledging it. But that's just a difference in approach, and if that were that it wouldn't be much or even dissapointing.

What's disappointing me is that during the Ohio debate he said that he took her at her word that it wasn't her that distributed the photo and now he's accusing her of it again. It's a disappointing slip, especially when he has other tactics of hers to call out.

Some apologetics:

It should be noted that Obama's recent comments don't accuse Clinton herself of leaking it, but just her campaign (and by extension, Clinton of running the type of campaign that would do that). It is true that he apparently hasn't exactly "set it aside" though, although he may have meant that comment solely in the context of the particular debate.

Some apologetics:

It should be noted that Obama's recent comments don't accuse Clinton herself of leaking it, but just her campaign (and by extension, Clinton of running the type of campaign that would do that). It is true that he apparently hasn't exactly "set it aside" though, although he may have meant that comment solely in the context of the particular debate.

Well it's as weak as people saying Senator Clinton accused Senator Obama of being a Muslim terrorist because she added '...unless there's something I don't know' despite that coming after an express statement that she in no way thought he was.

It's hard to blame candidates for this sort of rubbish - supporters will say any old crap at times.

I must say i have watched this campaign with interest over the last few months in fact its very difficult to escape how mr obama is doing or what mrs clinton said maybe even mr mcain will get a mention if the former havnt proceeded to tear strips off each other which i can only assume is bad for the party, but the funny thing is im Australian, i cannot even imagine how many ads and campaign messages on the radio you must have to put up with when i seem to be bombarded with it (in a reported fashion), we recently had an election for prime minister and there was about 2 months of ads on tv, we all (compulsary) went on one day to vote and found out that night who got it, do any of you find your system a bit much or annoying at how long it takes and what the FUCK is a super delegate lol isnt anyones vote as good as anothers??

So far, I have seen none here in Southern Pennsylvania but my mute button is on standby for after the Mississippi Primary. In the General Election, we pretty much know who is going to win on Election Night or early the next morning.

What evidence? Bring it forward. Show me that I am wrong.

If you constantly keep asking, after evidence upon evidence has been presented, then you dear sir either cannot read or because it disagrees with your preconceived opinions, you ignore it.

You don't have any evidence. You have speculation. That is all you have.

This is of course a good point. You have repetitively said, "many others agree with me." Yet, on this huge thread mixed from multiple threads you really don't find that happening. TCT presents the best case, but he's just a devil's advocate who actually supports Obama. People have presented evidence to show that you opinion is lacking in information to back it up. You are entitled to your own opinion, but we are entitled to refute it to the best of our abilities. So where are all these people who agree with you. It's not like they can miss the thread title so where?

You don't know what I am going for? I am standing up for my right to have an opinion. I will not be shouted down or go into submission because you don't like my opinion. The fact that my opinion does not meet your high standards does not invalidate my opinion.

Then I demand an apology from you for the way you have attacked me for my own opinions over 3 years since I've been here. You have slammed my opinions with no remorse and stated that I have no evidence to back up my opinions. If you firmly believe what you just stated above then I want an apology.

You don't know what I am going for? I am standing up for my right to have an opinion. I will not be shouted down or go into submission because you don't like my opinion. The fact that my opinion does not meet your high standards does not invalidate my opinion.

It wouldn't matter if everyone on these boards disagreed with my opinion, it still does not make my opinion false. It is my personal belief, and your ad hominems, giggles, and whatever else you want to throw at me, is not going to change that belief.

You won't entertain the idea that if the majority of people disagree with you it is likely that you are wrong? I mean, while you'd like to believe the lone wolf is right when all other are wrong, it's not likely. People have refuted your claims pretty well. If you were making great points that people thought were convincing more people would be saying so. Instead they are saying you are wrong. When the overwhelming majority say you are wrong you probably are.

Then I demand an apology from you for the way you have attacked me for my own opinions over 3 years since I've been here. You have slammed my opinions with no remorse and stated that I have no evidence to back up my opinions. If you firmly believe what you just stated above then I want an apology.
So, for your redress of grievance, you "demand an apology"?

Perhaps you are somewhat confused? When I have "slammed" your opinions, is when you tried to use your opinion as "fact". Most times your opinionated "facts" were unverifiable by you. Many times you were asked by many posters to support your "facts", and most often you did not because you could not. Even when poster after poster posted verifiable facts that refuted your opinion, you remained in denial.

Am I going to suggest that my opinions are always right? Of course not, no one is infallible. Just 4 years ago, I and many others on these boards firmly believed that John Kerry would win the Presidency. Guess what....I and many others were shocked, and very disappointed that he lost. You were very happy that your guy Bush won.

Five years ago, before I was on these boards, I felt that Bush talking about invading Iraq was a very bad idea, and that it would destablize the Middle East more than it already was. It was my opinion that there was no WMD and that the UN should be allowed to finish their inspections.

Guess what....there was no WMD and the invasion has proven to be a very bad idea.

So yeah, sometimes my opinions are right and sometimes they are wrong, but I am entitled to that opinion. If I am shown compelling evidence that could trump my opinion, then I will look at that evidence.

A lot of polititians use propaganda to mold public opinion and sway the masses. Here is an example from Aug. of 2006:

Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/07/half_of_us_still_believes_iraq_had_wmd/)

There have been many "tools" used here on this thread by various posters to sell their brand. A good motto is buyer beware.

I stand by my opinion about the red states.

So anyway...

An interesting article I read, which essentially confirmed much of my feelings on this, that the Clinton camp have simply been performing poorly in terms of their messaging and it's outlined why here.



Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/10/america/clinton.php)

I think her problem has been that she's not managed to stick to a single, coherent and consistent message, to some extent they were sideswiped by the unexpected popularity of Senator Obama and I do think that the early losses gave him serious momentum.

She has a real issue in trying to gather any momentum now, sure she might win Pennsylvania but overall public opinion, I just don't think she can sway it back.

Lotta truth in that one....

Heh, that's awesome.

Here is what kills me about CH's arguments. Bush and Kerry both got the most popular votes in history. Kerry got 1.3 million in GA. Over a million voted in the GA primary this year. IN THE PRIMARY. It's absolutely absurd to ignore that. A million in the primary in VA compared to 1.5 in the last actual election. It's unheard of.

The numbers are incredible. There is no reason to suggest the map is fixed and it's really a losing attitude that would inspire such a claim.

With GA, I think it's also important to note that our previous governor was a Democrat, and it's only rather recently that the Repubs have taken over our legislature (largely because many switched sides when Purdue was elected governor). A lot of the Republican vote in GA has been largely due to the military vote, which has traditionally gone Republican. But who among the frontrunners has received the most donations from military members thus far? That's right, it's a Democrat - Barrack Obama.

While I certainly wouldn't guarantee it, I could see Obama taking GA vs. McCain, despite CH's constant comments that it will stay red forever.

Germaine Greer on HRC:

"I don't like Hillary because she's so bossy and cold and manipulative and stuff, and I don't think having her in power is going to make any difference, basically, because she will have the same set of advisers," Greer said.

"I can't see that Hillary would appeal to feminists because, why is she there? She is there because she is Bill's wife, and it's a bit useless to pretend, 'Oh, it's because of her wonderful job as a senator,'" she told Australia's Nine Network late Monday.

"I just don't think it's true. When she had a big job in government, she blew it," said the British-based Greer, referring to Hillary Clinton's work on health issues during her husband's administration.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080311/en_afp/australiausvotegreer_080311034450

So much for any suggestions that one is anti-feminist if one dislikes HRC - if Greer's The Female Eunuch feminist chops aren't enough, nothing will be.

no matter who you vote for this presidential election, you will end up being sexist and racist, sexist and ageist, or racist and ageist

With GA, I think it's also important to note that our previous governor was a Democrat, and it's only rather recently that the Repubs have taken over our legislature (largely because many switched sides when Purdue was elected governor). A lot of the Republican vote in GA has been largely due to the military vote, which has traditionally gone Republican. But who among the frontrunners has received the most donations from military members thus far? That's right, it's a Democrat - Barrack Obama.

While I certainly wouldn't guarantee it, I could see Obama taking GA vs. McCain, despite CH's constant comments that it will stay red forever.

Well, it will stay 'red' as long as it's conceded in advance and never contested, that much is for sure.

Germaine Greer on HRC:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080311/en_afp/australiausvotegreer_080311034450

So much for any suggestions that one is anti-feminist if one dislikes HRC - if Greer's The Female Eunuch feminist chops aren't enough, nothing will be.

Actually, I hadn't heard many people pulling the feminist card since the NYC NOW chapter kinda blew it a month or two back trying to paint one of Obama's local supporters (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) as a misogynist because he wouldn't support Hilary.

Granted, if it was Ted Kennedy, he might very well be a misogynist, but it wouldn't be because he doesn't support Clinton's bid.

She does make a good point in that it is kinda disingenuous to pretend Clinton's here because of her Senate career. If that was all Clinton was here for, she wouldn't need to keep trying to claim Bill's achievements in the White House as partly hers.

*Edit: God, what am I? A walking temporal anomaly? Seems like every time I post in this thread we all end up doing the time warp again...

Actually, I hadn't heard many people pulling the feminist card since the NYC NOW chapter kinda blew it a month or two back trying to paint one of Obama's local supporters (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) as a misogynist because he wouldn't support Hilary.

Granted, if it was Ted Kennedy, he might very well be a misogynist, but it wouldn't be because he doesn't support Clinton's bid.

My mother tried to get a rise out of me over Xmas by playing the gender card (even though she supports Obama). I countered it with Condi Rice. ;)

She does make a good point in that it is kinda disingenuous to pretend Clinton's here because of her Senate career. If that was all Clinton was here for, she wouldn't need to keep trying to claim Bill's achievements in the White House as partly hers.

The Dick Morris piece I tagged above had a nice bit of advice for Obama:

Suggestion for Obama:

The next time Hillary uses the recycled red phone ad, counter with one of your own. When the phone rings in the middle of the night, have a woman’s voice, with a flat Midwestern accent, answer it and say, “Hold on” into the receiver. Then she should shout, “Bill! It’s for you!”

Because with Hillary’s complete lack of any meaningful experience in foreign affairs, and her lack of the “testing” that she boldly claims, she’ll be yelling for Bill.

no matter who you vote for this presidential election, you will end up being sexist and racist, sexist and ageist, or racist and ageist

What're you, a politicianist r'sumthin'?

no matter who you vote for this presidential election, you will end up being sexist and racist, sexist and ageist, or racist and ageist

i am looking forward to a president that is in the prime demographic for email scams, myself.

Actually, I hadn't heard many people pulling the feminist card since the NYC NOW chapter kinda blew it a month or two back trying to paint one of Obama's local supporters (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) as a misogynist because he wouldn't support Hilary.

Granted, if it was Ted Kennedy, he might very well be a misogynist, but it wouldn't be because he doesn't support Clinton's bid.

She does make a good point in that it is kinda disingenuous to pretend Clinton's here because of her Senate career. If that was all Clinton was here for, she wouldn't need to keep trying to claim Bill's achievements in the White House as partly hers.

Hillary's problems with true feminists is difficult for her to overcome. Most feminists believe in the empowerment of women through their own means. They would never accept a woman letting a man treat her the way Bill has treated Hillary. He lies, cheats, and disregards her emotional state. Feminists look at her as being power hungry and using her marriage to Bill to catapault her way to the top. In other words, she is not trying to run on her own merits. She wants to take credit for her husband's positives, thereby making it about both of them and not her own merits. Most feminists believe a woman should shatter glass ceilings by herself, not as a result of marriage and power-couple status. This is why she has lost support from women. I may not agree with them, but tis the way it is.

no matter who you vote for this presidential election, you will end up being sexist and racist, sexist and ageist, or racist and ageist

And despite any policy changes that a Democratic winner may implement, we'll never get any credit for changing course from the Europeans.

My mother tried to get a rise out of me over Xmas by playing the gender card (even though she supports Obama). I countered it with Condi Rice. ;)

I was only asked once outside of NSG if my support for Obama came from not wanting to vote for a woman, my answer:

Of course I'd vote for a woman, just not that one.

Though honestly, I just have never heard it all that much, if at all. To boot, the first time I heard a news broadcast talk about Obama's ethnicity, it was a BBC broadcast.



The Dick Morris piece I tagged above had a nice bit of advice for Obama:

Ugh, I'd rather there were no campaign commercials for a while. The whole Foster/Oberweis special election here in Illinois was brutal enough, and I couldn't even vote in that one.

My mother tried to get a rise out of me over Xmas by playing the gender card (even though she supports Obama). I countered it with Condi Rice. ;)



The Dick Morris piece I tagged above had a nice bit of advice for Obama:

Fun fact (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0310/uselection.html) about the 3AM ad. (I posted it earlier, but, you know...

Well, it will stay 'red' as long as it's conceded in advance and never contested, that much is for sure.

Absolutely. A lot of the "red state/blue state" nonsense is a matter of self-fulfilling prophesy. If the Democrat or Republican candidate essentially ignores a state, why would anyone question prevailing habit?

no matter who you vote for this presidential election, you will end up being sexist and racist, sexist and ageist, or racist and ageist

What're you, a politicianist r'sumthin'?

Well I can't say that some of my best friends are politicians.

i am looking forward to a president that is in the prime demographic for email scams, myself.

You want to send Obama an email about how you need him to help you move millions of dollars into a foreign account andall he needs to do is send you a money order?

And despite any policy changes that a Democratic winner may implement, we'll never get any credit for changing course from the Europeans.

What? :confused:

You just can't make this stuff up...

Now I see why so many people love to watch the primaries and elections unfold, it's better than any circus.

I have to say I'm kind of enjoying it. It's like watching football (Amer-...you know what? It doesn't matter which sport you think that applies to in this case), except the stakes are far far greater.

EDIT: Plus, you get cartoons-
http://www.crisdecuba.com/images/cartoon.jpg

Fun fact (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0310/uselection.html) about the 3AM ad. (I posted it earlier, but, you know...

You just can't make this stuff up...

Now I see why so many people love to watch the primaries and elections unfold, it's better than any circus.

I was only asked once outside of NSG if my support for Obama came from not wanting to vote for a woman

YMMV. ;)

Of course I'd vote for a woman, just not that one.

Ditto. Oddly enough, a possibly better one for my books might be Tammy Baldwin. (Like Obama, she has positions I vehemently disagree with. But I might well vote for her just to gve certain factions a well deserved apopolexy...)

Though honestly, I just have never heard it all that much, if at all. To boot, the first time I heard a news broadcast talk about Obama's ethnicity, it was a BBC broadcast.

Again, YMMV.

Ugh, I'd rather there were no campaign commercials for a while. The whole Foster/Oberweis special election here in Illinois was brutal enough, and I couldn't even vote in that one.

One more reason I'm glad I'm abroad.

Fun fact (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0310/uselection.html) about the 3AM ad. (I posted it earlier, but, you know...

Saw that and LOLed.

You just can't make this stuff up...

Now I see why so many people love to watch the primaries and elections unfold, it's better than any circus.

Indeed.

But who among the frontrunners has received the most donations from military members thus far? That's right, it's a Democrat - Barrack Obama.
I find that rather interesting. Do you have a link that supports that?

While I certainly wouldn't guarantee it, I could see Obama taking GA vs. McCain, despite CH's constant comments that it will stay red forever.
I never stated that Georgia would stay red forever. I just predict that it will stay red in 2008.

I find that rather interesting. Do you have a link that supports that?


I never stated that Georgia would stay red forever. I just predict that it will stay red in 2008.

You pretty much said it would never go blue as it hasn't forever, but anyway.

As for the military donor thing

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/14/war-critics-obama-ron-pa_n_64417.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-military-donors_N.htm

Ooooh, and money from me for personal anecdotal evidence. Granted, I donated to McCain as well and have raised money for them both.

You pretty much said it would never go blue as it hasn't forever, but anyway.
I really don't believe that I would ever make such a foolish prediction. My prediction was based solely on the candidates running for office this year.

As for the military donor thing

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/14/war-critics-obama-ron-pa_n_64417.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-military-donors_N.htm

Ooooh, and money from me for personal anecdotal evidence. Granted, I donated to McCain as well and have raised money for them both.
Thanks.

You pretty much said it would never go blue as it hasn't forever, but anyway.

As for the military donor thing

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/14/war-critics-obama-ron-pa_n_64417.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-13-military-donors_N.htm

Ooooh, and money from me for personal anecdotal evidence. Granted, I donated to McCain as well and have raised money for them both.

Thanks! (I had lost the links).

I was joking. I'm pointing out to any new posters lurking that we may poke each other, but for the most part, we're friends of some sort or another.

Like there's all that many new posters who are going to wade through this thread...
:rolleyes: