NationStates Jolt Archive

I used to. I lurked around about this time four years ago. I watched the huge election threads. It's actually where I first encountered CH.

Yeah, but you're weird...
:p

These are half a year old. It's not particularly relevant at this point.

Indeed. But there's nothing out there suggesting that the trend has changed.

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.

These are half a year old. It's not particularly relevant at this point.

Like there's all that many new posters who are going to wade through this thread...
:rolleyes:

I used to. I lurked around about this time four years ago. I watched the huge election threads. It's actually where I first encountered CH.

These are half a year old. It's not particularly relevant at this point.

Half a year, how could I use something so outdated? Ok, how about Feb 5th 2008?

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/military_donations.php

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/military-donors.html

posting this again so it doesn't get lost due to the freakin' time warps
I used to. I lurked around about this time four years ago. I watched the huge election threads. It's actually where I first encountered CH.

Yeah, but you're weird...
:p

It's referencinng Q4 last year. The point is that there has been a lot of evidence presented and a lot of shifting of positions since then. It may very well still be true, but your essentially talking about before the campaign hit full swing and before it started becoming apparent who actually had a chance at the white house.

For example, do you really, on any front, believe that Ron Paul continues to hold that title?

Check my edit, I provided anther link as well. You're missing the question I was responding to. A poster made a point that Georgia remained red because of the military vote in 2004. They then implicated that the military supports Obama more than the other candidates. This is true with the exception of Ron Paul. Out of all the mainstream candidates Obama raises more $ from military donors than any other.

Half a year, how could I use something so outdated? Ok, how about Feb 5th 2008?

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/military_donations.php

It's referencinng Q4 last year. The point is that there has been a lot of evidence presented and a lot of shifting of positions since then. It may very well still be true, but your essentially talking about before the campaign hit full swing and before it started becoming apparent who actually had a chance at the white house.

For example, do you really, on any front, believe that Ron Paul continues to hold that title?

It's referencinng Q4 last year. The point is that there has been a lot of evidence presented and a lot of shifting of positions since then. It may very well still be true, but your essentially talking about before the campaign hit full swing and before it started becoming apparent who actually had a chance at the white house.

For example, do you really, on any front, believe that Ron Paul continues to hold that title?

If you have more recent numbers please post.

I saw it. It's true. So? This is NSG. We're all wierd.

I have no point...





































.

posting this again so it doesn't get lost due to the freakin' time warps


Yeah, but you're weird...
:p

I saw it. It's true. So? This is NSG. We're all wierd.

Check my edit, I provided anther link as well. You're missing the question I was responding to. A poster made a point that Georgia remained red because of the military vote in 2004. They then implicated that the military supports Obama more than the other candidates. This is true with the exception of Ron Paul. Out of all the mainstream candidates Obama raises more $ from military donors than any other.

Both links reference the same study and both are referring to Q4. I'm just pointing out, that it's not entirely relevant to now. These kinds of points should be placed in context. It's important. That's actually the biggest flaw in most of CH's arguments, and the arguments supporting Obama, IN MY OPINION, should avoid such obvious pitfalls.

If you have more recent numbers please post.

You want me to evidence it? At this time Obama was way outside of a frontrunner and had not been subject to much scrutiny at all. Since there has been much scrutiny of his position on Afghanistan. It's unreasonable to expect there has been no change. However, if you'd like to show that he currently has that level of support, please do. Until then, I'm going to reasonably assume that like every other area of the country his support has varied in some way during the various poitns in the campaign.

So, for your redress of grievance, you "demand an apology"?

To put it simply? YES!!!

*snip meaningless crap*

You forget that every opinion, regardless of the fucking topic, you slammed me and not just the Iraq War.

So I was trying to see if I could get a more recent breakdown of donations to see if I could end the back and forth, and I wasn't successful. Now that I think about it that shouldn't surprise me since the parties just released their totals from last month and I don't think have to release the breakdowns themselves until the end of the quarter. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but anyway, the more recent information they have is donations for January, where I couldn't find what the military donations were so far.

How ever, I did find this (http://www.crisdecuba.com/images/cartoon.jpg), that supports to a degree what Jocabia is saying (god, it is sickening...) Anyway, the theory is-
Candidates who raise lots of money say it indicates broad support. Candidates with little money point out that voters, not donors, decide elections. Here’s who raised the most money in each state. Roll your cursor over a state to see the amount to the top fund-raiser and how the state’s overall money splits between Democrats and Republicans.

On that map, of course, Obama pretty much rules it. Including Texas, where in February, albeit in a close outcome, Obama lost the popular vote regardless of leading the donations race in that state in January. That's only a month difference between when the donations were raised and when the votes ultimately went to Clinton. From this I think we can infer to a degree that donation totals are as fleeting as polls and only the freshest numbers are worth looking at.

Which doesn't discount the conclusion originally put forth, that the anti-war candidates were getting a disproportionate amount of the military donations in 2007. Thats worth noting, but as the map vs. February donations (Obama also out donated in California but lost California on Feb 4th, so it doesn't take much time at all) shows, donations aren't necessarily a clear indication. Even with the bulk of Obama's donations coming from small individual donors.

I used to. I lurked around about this time four years ago. I watched the huge election threads. It's actually where I first encountered CH.

And where I told CH that Bush will win re-election and he told me I was wrong and that Kerry was going to win it. I guess we know how he loves to predict things.

Oh and also called the Canadian Election for a Conservative Government too and he told me I was wrong there because the "liberals have been in power for 40+ years."

Never trust CH when it comes to elections. He's been wrong before.

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, gee, if that's all that matters for debating, then this is my opinion:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/1zx6ttt.gif

But you didn't seriously mean that. You didn't because you've been joking this whole damned time.

Give it up already, Canuck. The game's over. Please return to your old self, for all our sakes.

I don't know about the value of kicking dirt in faces, but this-
Well, gee, if that's all that matters for debating, then this is my opinion:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/1zx6ttt.gif


that was some funny shit.

I don't know about the value of kicking dirt in faces, but this-


that was some funny shit.
Though that guy should know better than to keep his pokedemocrats at half health.

I don't know about the value of kicking dirt in faces, but this-


that was some funny shit.

Hell yes. I've got it bookmarked now.

so we are agreed that hc's only hope at all (barring a complete obama implosion) is to win the 'national popular vote', right? mark schmitt (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=popular_vote_reality_check) played with some numbers, and it looks like even that is going to require a complete obama implosion.

so we are agreed that hc's only hope at all (barring a complete obama implosion) is to win the 'national popular vote', right? mark schmitt (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=popular_vote_reality_check) played with some numbers, and it looks like even that is going to require a complete obama implosion.

The math certainly looks bad for her. I think what it says to Obama is that even if an ultra negative campaign can eek out a marginal victory for her in Pennsylvania he can let it ride because ultimately his positive message will win out and there's no need to listen to the pundits who keep insisting that he fight dirty as well.

And where I told CH that Bush will win re-election and he told me I was wrong and that Kerry was going to win it. I guess we know how he loves to predict things.
Ummm.....most people here were pulling for Kerry. Look how great things turned out for Bush, America, and the Republicans.

Anyways, did I actually say you were wrong? You have a link?

Oh and also called the Canadian Election for a Conservative Government too and he told me I was wrong there because the "liberals have been in power for 40+ years."
Link please.

Never trust CH when it comes to elections. He's been wrong before.
I admitted a few posts back that I have been wrong. I am human you know.

Perhaps then we should just trust you when it comes to elections?

Dude, Kerry didn't even come close to winning the electoral college vote. Not even Ohio would've helped him. If he did take the State, Bush would still be President because the US House had more state delegations that were republican dominated than the Democrats.

I'm willing to bet though that Bush will retain House and Senate and maybe add one or two seats in the Senate. That is my early prediction.

The Republicans will maintain the House and Senate (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11409182&postcount=6).

I don't know about the value of kicking dirt in faces, but this-


that was some funny shit.

Though that guy should know better than to keep his pokedemocrats at half health.

Hell yes. I've got it bookmarked now.
I'd love to claim credit for it, but Kiryu posted it over at GM, and I got it from him.

Ummm.....most people here were pulling for Kerry. Look how great things turned out for Bush, America, and the Republicans.

They took the White House as I predicted 4 years ago this month.

I admitted a few posts back that I have been wrong. I am human you know.

Yes I know. The fact is, you have been impervious to all the evidence against Mrs. Clinton.

Perhaps then we should just trust you when it comes to elections?

Didn't say that...

BTW: Obama is leading in Mississippi.

Mississippi has been called for Barack Obama.

As of right now, the delegate totals are as follows:

Total: Total Pledged Super
Obama 1,597 1,391 206
Clinton 1,470 1,232 238

BTW: Obama is leading in Mississippi.

The sun rose in the east, Obama won in Mississippi...the only question is by how much now. Will it erase gains from last Tuesday?

The sun rose in the east, Obama won in Mississippi...the only question is by how much now. Will it erase gains from last Tuesday?

He does have a 127 delegate lead now.

As to the state, he has a 33% lead.

65% to 32%

Will it erase gains from last Tuesday?

almost certainly. she was only up by 6, and wyoming already cut that to 4.

edit: i take that back, the way they split things up in mississippi makes it a much closer call than i would have expected. dude, the dems really need to step back and make their proportional win system more proportional. or at least more consistent.

You want me to evidence it? At this time Obama was way outside of a frontrunner and had not been subject to much scrutiny at all. Since there has been much scrutiny of his position on Afghanistan. It's unreasonable to expect there has been no change. However, if you'd like to show that he currently has that level of support, please do. Until then, I'm going to reasonably assume that like every other area of the country his support has varied in some way during the various poitns in the campaign.

Relax my friend. I was simply asking you to provide evidence to the contrary if you had it because I couldn't find anything more current. Obama's core message of what his vision if for the US military has not changed. You ask any military man if he'd rather be hunting and killing OBL and his cohorts, or sitting in the middle of simmering civil war, and the choice will be easy.

Obama remains strong in saying the war in Iraq was a mistake we must now fix, and the real battle is in Afghanistan (and even Pakistan but this was covered pages ago). He realizes that the global war on terror requires more than smartbombs, but smart choices on how to deal with key global issues. He recognizes that terrorism is rooted in something that violence itself cannot change. His pragmatism in this area allows him to explore new ways to deal with the Iraeli/Pali issues. People look at the situation now and say there can never be peace. A self fulfilling prophecy allows accords to fail time and time again. Having been immersed in others' cultures allows for a unique perspective on a variety of issues. A person is made up of their experiences and how they handle situations. Perhaps his unique viewpoint will lead to a better compromise that can be lasting. I think military people find this assuring. They want to be used in a way that makes things better. If they feel that their mission is so important that they simply cannot fail, perhaps success will take hold.

Oh, and Holy S dude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOIwQSq9y8o)

If they feel that their mission is so important that they simply cannot fail, perhaps success will take hold.
Who/what will inspire those troops to that level of performance?

almost certainly. she was only up by 6, and wyoming already cut that to 4.

edit: i take that back, the way they split things up in mississippi makes it a much closer call than i would have expected. dude, the dems really need to step back and make their proportional win system more proportional. or at least more consistent.

It just hit 60% in the tally with 91% reporting. It's kind of sad, but I've started to view states where Obama gets to 60% like when you go to a basketball game and get a free hamburger or pizza when the team makes 110 points. I honestly think there's a little delusioned part of myself that might actually think it's getting a free Whopper...ah, now it's back down to 59%, no Whopper yet...

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

looks like mississippi wants to play too - 60% obama at 91% reporting.

It just hit 60% in the tally with 91% reporting. It's kind of sad, but I've started to view states where Obama gets to 60% like when you go to a basketball game and get a free hamburger or pizza when the team makes 110 points. I honestly think there's a little delusioned part of myself that might actually think it's getting a free Whopper...ah, now it's back down to 59%, no Whopper yet...

haha, yeah, free ice cream if the high school football team wins by more than two touchdowns.

looks like mississippi wants to play too - 60% obama at 91% reporting.

at 99%, with one heavily african american county left to report, i say close enough.

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%)
Mississippi (61%)*
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
Wyoming (61%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*

And we should probably spot him Vermont (59.81)* and Maine (59.47%) 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

Woot! Free Whopper!


I mean, another decisive victory. Though the deep racial divide is not ultimately a good thing.

Another close to 100,000 in the popular vote as well, making Clinton's job that much harder in her drive to get the popular vote close.

I can't get the article on the popular vote to load so I can't see what that does to the math and how much she now has to win in Pennsylvania, but it can't be good.

haha, yeah, free ice cream if the high school football team wins by more than two touchdowns.

It had better be cookies & cream...

It had better be cookies & cream...

No way! Tin Roof Sundae! I love Tin Roof Sundae. I haven't seen that flavor of ice cream in the stores for years now...

Blue Bell's Peaches and Cream FTW! :D

Blue Bell's Peaches and Cream FTW! :D

Pff. Fruit flavored ice cream is for girls.

Also, at 99% it's 61-37%, which I think is the exact percentage for Wyoming as well.

Pff. Fruit flavored ice cream is for girls.

That's OK. According to the gender test in my BSRI thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551629), I'm androgynous. :)

OBAMA CLEARLY LOST SUPER TUESDAY... in my opinion. I'm so tired of everyone shouting me down.

OBAMA CLEARLY LOST SUPER TUESDAY... in my opinion. I'm so tired of everyone shouting me down.

No, he didn't. He won with flying colours. There's plenty of evidence available if you'll just look at it.

No, he didn't. He won with flying colours. There's plenty of evidence available if you'll just look at it.
J was being sarcastic.

OBAMA CLEARLY LOST SUPER TUESDAY... in my opinion. I'm so tired of everyone shouting me down.

I dont know if you are being serious or not, but considering he was expect to get his teeth kicked in, Id say regardless of if he won or last he did very well.

Wow, all you guys have been with this thing since the beginning, haven't you? How did you miss what he was going for there?

Wow, all you guys have been with this thing since the beginning, haven't you? How did you miss what he was going for there?


My sarcasm meter is broken as its 1 AM.

There's plenty of evidence available if you'll just look at it.

not in my opinion


in other news, obama's delegate wins in mississippi and wyoming topped hc's tiny victory last week, putting him up for the month. and he was this close to doing even better. like literally within a half a point of changing the state-wide delegates in ms from 2-2 to 3-1, within 2.2% of changing the other state-wide delegates in ms from 4-3 to 5-2, just a bit short of winning congressional district 1, 2.2% off splitting district 2 at 6-1 rather than 5-2, and 3.2% short of splitting district 3 at 4-1 rather than 3-2.

and, of course, he picked up a nearly 100,000 vote margin tonight to edge his popular vote margin up ever closer to a million (roughly, given that we don't have numbers of votes in a bunch of caucus states, and so have to sort of back-guess it based off of turnout and state convention delegates, and project out in the case of texas)

Wow, all you guys have been with this thing since the beginning, haven't you? How did you miss what he was going for there?
So nobody plays along with a joke anymore? :(

not in my opinion


in other news, obama's delegate wins in mississippi and wyoming topped hc's tiny victory last week, putting him up for the month. and he was this close to doing even better. like literally within a half a point of changing the state-wide delegates in ms from 2-2 to 3-1, within 2.2% of changing the other state-wide delegates in ms from 4-3 to 5-2, just a bit short of winning congressional district 1, 2.2% off splitting district 2 at 6-1 rather than 5-2, and 3.2% short of splitting district 3 at 4-1 rather than 3-2.

and, of course, he picked up nearly 100,000 additional votes to edge his popular vote margin up ever closer to a million (roughly, given that we don't have numbers of votes in a bunch of primary states, and so have to sort of back-guess it based off of turnout and state convention delegates)

I actually have to do the math here because, well that's' the way I'm going to, so there.

Ohio C-74 O-65 C+9
Texas Primary C-65 O-61 C+4
Rhode Island C-13 O-8 C+5
Total Gain 18
Texas Caucus O-38 C-29 C-9
Vermont O-9 C-6 C-3
Total Loss 12
Net at the end of Tuesday C+6
Damn. I honestly hadn't added that out. Her big win on Tuesday was a net of 6 delegates.
Now, the recent ones-
Wyoming O-7 C-5 C-2
Mississippi O-17 C-11 C-6
Total Loss C-8
Net after today, Clinton down 2 more delegates than she was last Monday.

What do you know. I was actually doing that to challenge the premise but it turns out to be true. All she managed to do was apply momentary pressure to the wound.

I should do popular vote next...

Okay, popular vote

Ohio - Clinton + 228,781
Texas - Clinton + 101029
(my understanding is that you vote in the caucus after you vote in the primary, so I'm not going to count them as part of the popular vote. If you want to make an argument that they should, knock yourself out)
Rhode Island- Clinton + 33,635
Total Gain= Clinton + 363,445

Vermont - Clinton - 32100
Wyoming - Clinton - 2066
Mississippi - Clinton - 98589
Total loss Clinton - 132755
Net gain Clinton +230690

So in that respect (and taking out the caucus, which would only give him an extra 5298 so far with 41% reporting) Clinton has a much better case for winning the Tuesday elections. Even with the wins this week, she gained 230,690 in the popular vote race.

In my laziness I can't find the popular vote totals, so I don't know how much that closes the gap.

Okay, popular vote

Ohio - Clinton + 228,781
Texas - Clinton + 101029
(my understanding is that you vote in the caucus after you vote in the primary, so I'm not going to count them as part of the popular vote. If you want to make an argument that they should, knock yourself out)
Rhode Island- Clinton + 33,635
Total Gain= Clinton + 363,445

Vermont - Clinton - 32100
Wyoming - Clinton - 2066
Mississippi - Clinton - 98589
Total loss Clinton - 132755
Net gain Clinton +230690

So in that respect (and taking out the caucus, which would only give him an extra 5298 so far with 41% reporting) Clinton has a much better case for winning the Tuesday elections. Even with the wins this week, she gained 230,690 in the popular vote race.

In my laziness I can't find the popular vote totals, so I don't know how much that closes the gap.

She won that battle, but just barely, and since Texas and Ohio were supposed to be her stronghold, were where she fell back to when Obama looked like he was routing her, I would have a hard time considering this a real victory. She won, but not by the margins she needed to in order to rob Obama of his credibility.

She won that battle, but just barely, and since Texas and Ohio were supposed to be her stronghold, were where she fell back to when Obama looked like he was routing her, I would have a hard time considering this a real victory. She won, but not by the margins she needed to in order to rob Obama of his credibility.

Free Soviet's article certainly makes that case. I don't know how close the popular vote total was and is, so I don't know how far back she is and how close Tuesday got her.

Ooooh, here it is- (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)
Obama +700,391 without Florida, Obama +405,619 with Florida.
13,276,059 49.5% 12,575,668 46.9% (no Florida)
13,852,273 48.5% 13,446,654 47.1% (Florida)
So, she needs two 'crucial Tuesdays' and Florida as it stands or she needs the redos of Florida and Michigan to be one of three crucial Tuesdays. Is there some gem other than Pennsylvania, or is she hoping to win that one by 250k as well as Michigan and Florida by the same amount?

I guess I could see that hope as a reason to hang on. I guess.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/economy/economic_advisers/index.htm?postversion=2008030512
Economic gurus: Counseling the candidates

Of all the advisers a candidate has, few are more important this year than the house economists.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- You might think that being part of a presidential candidate's brain trust would mean high-level meetings in plush quarters with good food.

Not exactly. There are high-level meetings - but they're more likely to be conducted by phone or on the fly between stump speeches.

As for the food, when asked what surprised him most about campaign life, John McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said, "How much I like eating out of vending machines."

But of course, with an economy to save and crowds to sway, who has time for dinner?

The economy is front and center in people's minds, and the leading presidential candidates are relying on economic experts to help them win the pocketbook persuasion game.

Here's a look at the top economic advisers to the leading candidates.

McCain campaign: Douglas Holtz-Eakin

Holtz-Eakin, chief economic adviser to Republican John McCain, is doing his best to upend the old saw that economics is the dismal science.

"The first thing the economics adviser brings to any campaign staff is a hip coolness and bling," he wrote in the New York Times Freakonomics blog. "Economists want to be valued for their minds and respected for their command of policy proposals ... but it just doesn't work that way," he wrote.

Nevertheless, Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and former chief economist on President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, is well-respected among deficit hawks for his positions on less-than-hip issues like entitlement reform, for which he's advocated early and often.

In his view, the sooner the long-term shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security are addressed, the better for the economy. Shoring up both programs would involve tough choices when it comes to spending cuts, Holtz-Eakin has said, a route he believes would be more effective than tax increases. Both he and other economists estimate the economy is not likely to grow enough to offset the mandatory spending pressures that will build as Baby Boomers retire.

The country's "current fiscal policy is unsustainable, as even draconian restraint in the annual spending on defense and nondefense programs are insufficient to guarantee that the current level of taxation will be sufficient to cover promises to seniors in retirement and health programs," Holtz-Eakin wrote last spring in a public policy journal. "In short, U.S. fiscal policy requires fundamental shifts."

Delaying reform, he went on to say, "will likely rely more heavily on tax increases to bring the budget into alignment because waiting permits spending to grow and tax increases are 'quicker' than benefit reductions."

Obama campaign: Austan Goolsbee

Austan Goolsbee, a 38-year-old University of Chicago economics professor who advises Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama, is new to the presidential campaign scene. He is mostly an outside-the-Beltway guy, although he is a member of the panel of economists that advises the Congressional Budget Office.

Goolsbee said that one of the hardest parts of his job on the campaign trail was getting used to "having a BlackBerry buzzing on my hip 30 times an hour. It's not the sort of thing you deal with as an economics professor."

Neither is the current controversy over a conversation he had with a Canadian official about NAFTA.

But he is used to the politically fraught debate over how much to tax high-income Americans. In his estimate, the sky won't fall if the top tax rate returns to 39.6% from the current 35%.

In one of his New York Times columns, Goolsbee points to data showing income for the top 1% of earners rose disproportionately relative to everyone else both when tax rates fell and when they rose.

"Seeing the same pattern ... indicates that tax cuts weren't responsible. It suggests that cuts for high-income taxpayers likely gave windfalls to those whose incomes were already rising sharply because of broader market forces," he wrote.

Though he's advising a Democrat, he's managed to garner respect from some unlikely corners. "[Goolsbee] seems to be the sort of person - amiable, empirical and reasonable - you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be," conservative columnist George Will wrote last October.

Clinton campaign: Gene Sperling

Far more seasoned on the political trail than Goolsbee or Holtz-Eakin is Gene Sperling, economic adviser to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Sperling is a longtime member of the Clinton camp. He was national economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and currently is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which is run by John Podesta, who served as President Clinton's chief of staff.

What most surprised Sperling about campaign life this time around is how early candidates started talking about policy. In 1992, Bill Clinton's campaign put out major proposals five months before Election Day. "This time, the policy announcements were starting a year before Iowa!"

While at the White House, Sperling played a central role in formulating economic policy, from coordinating the president's Social Security and debt reduction efforts to helping expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers.

Following his time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Sperling lent his talents to the Hollywood-version of the White House as a consultant and writer for "The West Wing." That job, he said, did as much for his personal life as his time in the White House did for his professional one. At his first meeting with the show's writers, he was seated next to a first-year writer who later became his wife.

In his book "The Pro-Growth Progressive: An Economic Strategy for Shared Prosperity," Sperling calls for balancing the advantages of a global economy with the goals of protecting workers.

"With hundreds of millions of new middle-class consumers coming into the world economy, we should be confident that in the long run America will win more than it loses from an open global economy," he writes. "What practical options do we have between simply assuming greater globalization will lift all boats, and resorting to self-defeating protectionism?"

I found this one interesting. Particularly that Obama's guy comes from the CSE...

Who/what will inspire those troops to that level of performance?

Our military (myself included) is already the most well trained, well equipped, well informed fighting force on Earth today. What would motivate them to an even higher level? As Neo Art pointed out in another thread, over the past 50 years the US military haqs not been used properly. They been surrogates of people in power wishing to manipulate the world for their leaders. WW1 and WW2, there was a clear mission, one that every soldier knew must be won for the peace and security of the world. After that we have been used for military police actions, assassinations, installing leadership more favorable to the US, and fighting the boogeyman of Communism.

Today soldiers feel a sense of urgency to combat worldwide terrorism. We know that we cannot change the scope of the globe through bullets and bombs alone. We must work to find altruism in our military deployments. If we say we're working to bring peace, stability, and democracy to the world than that better be the mission. No more subversive operations designed to alter the chosen (even not) leadership of other countries. When the military is used truly as a last resort, then they will have this sort of motivation. When you know you're being sent on a fool's errand, or a milk run, you're not as committed to the cause. Eisenhower had it right when he told us to fear the military industrial complex. It's time someone recognized the need for these corporations, but encouraged people to see them as a part of the larger picture.

Now, the recent ones-
Wyoming O-7 C-5 C-2
Mississippi O-17 C-11 C-6
Total Loss C-8
Net after today, Clinton down 2 more delegates than she was last Monday.

she came out ahead in the last division of mississippi, so the numbers are now O-19 C-14. which is big news for clinton; instead of being down two for the month of march, she is only down one. her path to the nomination is totally clear now.

she came out ahead in the last division of mississippi, so the numbers are now O-19 C-14. which is big news for clinton; instead of being down two for the month of march, she is only down one. her path to the nomination is totally clear now.

Yup, she's already made a note-Huge Success.

How many primaries are left anyway? I lost track. Pennsylvania's the only big one left, I know. At this rate, she won't be able to make any kind of case to the superdelegates for her nomination Not that the supers should vote against the popular vote/delegate count in any way, unless they somehow split

she came out ahead in the last division of mississippi, so the numbers are now O-19 C-14. which is big news for clinton; instead of being down two for the month of march, she is only down one. her path to the nomination is totally clear now.

LOL
You felt the need to say it before CH?

How many primaries are left anyway? I lost track. Pennsylvania's the only big one left, I know. At this rate, she won't be able to make any kind of case to the superdelegates for her nomination Not that the supers should vote against the popular vote/delegate count in any way, unless they somehow split

just ten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#April_and_beyond), with 566 pledged delegates between them.

just ten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#April_and_beyond), with 566 pledged delegates between them.

I'm taking bets right now: who wants to bet Clinton jumps straight to North Carolina after the Pennsylvania primary?

Let's say 1 : 3 odds.

I'm taking bets right now: who wants to bet Clinton jumps straight to North Carolina after the Pennsylvania primary?

Let's say 1 : 3 odds.

Nah, she's going to bank on the redos. By the end of this week or next week we'll see an agreement on how to do the redos-the credential committee is stacked and the Michigan and Florida delegates won't be seated, there aren't enough Clinton votes on it to make that happen now. They know now that their case can't be made, so their only hope is for a redo, they're motivated to come up with a plan. It's only a matter of how and who will pay for it. Once they decide to do that it will take at least 90 days to put it in action. Once that happens she'll use Pennsylvania as a 'momentum builder' to win states she thinks she's already won. She's going to hope those three states are going to close the 700k gap in popular vote to make her case to the supers.

Nah, she's going to bank on the redos. By the end of this week or next week we'll see an agreement on how to do the redos-the credential committee is stacked and the Michigan and Florida delegates won't be seated, there aren't enough Clinton votes on it to make that happen now. They know now that their case can't be made, so their only hope is for a redo, they're motivated to come up with a plan. It's only a matter of how and who will pay for it. Once they decide to do that it will take at least 90 days to put it in action. Once that happens she'll use Pennsylvania as a 'momentum builder' to win states she thinks she's already won. She's going to hope those three states are going to close the 700k gap in popular vote to make her case to the supers.

I'm not convinced she could win a redo in Michigan and Florida anyway. Michigan especially. If Obama's campaign would just step up and say "sure, we'll help you pay for it" it would probably clinch Michigan and bring Florida close enough that any gain Clinton makes would be negligible.

Nah, she's going to bank on the redos. By the end of this week or next week we'll see an agreement on how to do the redos-the credential committee is stacked and the Michigan and Florida delegates won't be seated, there aren't enough Clinton votes on it to make that happen now. They know now that their case can't be made, so their only hope is for a redo, they're motivated to come up with a plan. It's only a matter of how and who will pay for it. Once they decide to do that it will take at least 90 days to put it in action. Once that happens she'll use Pennsylvania as a 'momentum builder' to win states she thinks she's already won. She's going to hope those three states are going to close the 700k gap in popular vote to make her case to the supers.

If she loses the popular and pledged delegate vote but still gets the nomination, all hell is going to break loose.

Pff. Fruit flavored ice cream is for girls.

Also, at 99% it's 61-37%, which I think is the exact percentage for Wyoming as well.

A near-split, then?

=)

If she loses the popular and pledged delegate vote but still gets the nomination, all hell is going to break loose.

I honestly cannot see that happening.

Though, as I've been saying since Super Tuesday: If there's anyone that can lose this election, it's the Democrats.

Once they decide to do that it will take at least 90 days to put it in action.

And, IIRC, they had to have had that in place by last Monday, didn't they?

If she loses the popular and pledged delegate vote but still gets the nomination, all hell is going to break loose.

Indeed it will. I fully expect Denver 2008 to rival Chicago 1968 in at least some aspects...

And, IIRC, they had to have had that in place by last Monday, didn't they?


No, they only started the meetings last Wednesday. And already Florida has a plan (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-11-mail-in_N.htm). I was wrong, though, the candidates aren't paying for it. It's going to come from the state party.

No, they only started the meetings last Wednesday. And already Florida has a plan (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-11-mail-in_N.htm). I was wrong, though, the candidates aren't paying for it. It's going to come from the state party.

I suppose that's a better option. Keeps either candidate from using it to their advantage. Levels the playing field a bit.

I'm not convinced she could win a redo in Michigan and Florida anyway. Michigan especially. If Obama's campaign would just step up and say "sure, we'll help you pay for it" it would probably clinch Michigan and bring Florida close enough that any gain Clinton makes would be negligible.
I honestly don't know. I think I heard that the polls were split between them in Florida, but I don't really know.
If she loses the popular and pledged delegate vote but still gets the nomination, all hell is going to break loose.
It depends, if she actually draws close in the popular vote in the last 10 or 12, then she might have a case for legitimacy. Her advantage is actually Obama's civility. For all of CH's ballyhooing in these threads about how 'mean' Obama supporters are, his campaign has been more civil and has retained a higher percentage of supporters who say they'll be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee. Provided she can make a claim of legitimacy based on popular vote he's in a better position to create unity. I guess, if you wanted to credit her with total deviousness, you could count that as part of her plan, scorch the earth and then make the case to the supers that her supporters won't come around and his will so the only choice is to nominate her. That seems a bit much. I'm sure there are people who would buy though.
A near-split, then?

=)
Heh, well, naturally ;p

I suppose that's a better option. Keeps either candidate from using it to their advantage. Levels the playing field a bit.

I agree

No, they only started the meetings last Wednesday. And already Florida has a plan (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-11-mail-in_N.htm). I was wrong, though, the candidates aren't paying for it. It's going to come from the state party.

I could be wrong, but I thought the CNNj talking heads said the party rules stated the final one had to be held by June 7, requiring the 90 days to have started from this past Monday.

Edit: Your source says June 10th. That puts the 90 days at today, if I counted my calander correctly.

Okay, popular vote

Ohio - Clinton + 228,781
Texas - Clinton + 101029
(my understanding is that you vote in the caucus after you vote in the primary, so I'm not going to count them as part of the popular vote. If you want to make an argument that they should, knock yourself out)

I think you can vote in one or both. It is likely that at least some of the caucus-goers didn't vote in the primary. It's also likely that a lot of them did. Getting anything resembling a good vote number out of that is going to be pretty difficult, unless they actually put out numbers that take it into account.

Caucuses in general put a real monkey wrench into trying to figure out total popular vote. The Texas caucus is a bigger one than most.

I honestly don't know. I think I heard that the polls were split between them in Florida, but I don't really know.

I honestly think that he would've won Michigan if he'd been on the ballot. 36% undecided is telling. Florida, I can't be sure. By now the polls are probably much closer than they were at the primary.

I have, of course, been known to be wrong on occasion...just ask my wife.


It depends, if she actually draws close in the popular vote in the last 10 or 12, then she might have a case for legitimacy. Her advantage is actually Obama's civility. For all of CH's ballyhooing in these threads about how 'mean' Obama supporters are, his campaign has been more civil and has retained a higher percentage of supporters who say they'll be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee. Provided she can make a claim of legitimacy based on popular vote he's in a better position to create unity. I guess, if you wanted to credit her with total deviousness, you could count that as part of her plan, scorch the earth and then make the case to the supers that her supporters won't come around and his will so the only choice is to nominate her. That seems a bit much. I'm sure there are people who would buy though.


The only situtation I can see for the superdelegates overriding the popular vote or the delegate count is if they split and one has the delegates and the other the popular vote. Any other situation and I think they should go with whomever is in the lead. Clinton/Obama shouldn't be able to get by by making a case to the superdelegates, they should be making a case to the voters.

No, they only started the meetings last Wednesday. And already Florida has a plan (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-11-mail-in_N.htm). I was wrong, though, the candidates aren't paying for it. It's going to come from the state party.
I found this part of the article rather interesting:

The state party is moving forward, he said, despite resistance from Barack Obama's campaign. "We're concerned," said Obama strategist David Axelrod, noting Florida has not had enough preparation time.
I imagine that they would be concerned. It is always possible that Clinton will do better than 50% to 33%, especially since Edwards (285,000 votes) and the other candidates (50,000 votes) will not be on the ballot.

I think you can vote in one or both. It is likely that at least some of the caucus-goers didn't vote in the primary. It's also likely that a lot of them did. Getting anything resembling a good vote number out of that is going to be pretty difficult, unless they actually put out numbers that take it into account.

Caucuses in general put a real monkey wrench into trying to figure out total popular vote. The Texas caucus is a bigger one than most.
For the Texas caucus, the voters had to vote in the primary first.

Why they would allow people to vote twice is beyond me.

I imagine that they would be concerned. It is always possible that Clinton will do better than 50% to 33%, especially since Edwards (285,000 votes) and the other candidates (50,000 votes) will not be on the ballot.

I think they mean concerned about the process, silly.

A mail-in-vote is prime to be full of voter fraud, with no real way to track it. And what about ballots that get lost in the mail?

It may be the best solution, but it is far from ideal. Ensuring that everyone who wants to vote gets the chance (and only one chance) is going to be near impossible. This might be the only situation where I think a closed primary is a good thing, though. They have a ready-made mailing list and less fear of people trying to vote in both party's primaries.

For the Texas caucus, the voters had to vote in the primary first.

Why they would allow people to vote twice is beyond me.

They're weird?

Seriously though, I think it's a matter of trying to combine the pros of both the caucus and the primary system.

I found this part of the article rather interesting:


I imagine that they would be concerned. It is always possible that Clinton will do better than 50% to 33%, especially since Edwards (285,000 votes) and the other candidates (50,000 votes) will not be on the ballot.

Well, sure. Most of her wins are by more than 17%. She tends towards crushing victories in big states. Right? Right?

They're weird?

Seriously though, I think it's a matter of trying to combine the pros of both the caucus and the primary system.
What about the cons (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/confusion-rampant-over-te_b_89548.html)?

However, the Clinton Campaign could have a further strategy: challenging the entire Texas Democratic primary convention process because it is voter suppression. If the Clintons decide to adopt a scorched earth strategy to stay in the race, the campaign could go to court to have all the Texas "caucus" delegate totals discarded. This would be a double front: attempting to seat Florida delegates while trying to throw out 67 Texas delegates. There are many lines of argument for the Texas Two-Step as voter suppression, but surely the most significant is that non-English speakers are at a disadvantage in a system that, as you will see, prides itself on parity. Whereas in the primary part of the two-step there is help at every stage for Spanish (and Vietnamese) speakers, from polling signs to ballots to call-in translators, none of these are available for the primary conventions. The call-in translators, for example, will leave work at 7 PM on Tuesday. According to Gerry Birnberg, the Harris County Democratic Chairman, "the language of the Texas Democratic Party is English," and although there is a translation of the party rules into Spanish , the conventions are "to be conducted in English." In more subtle ways as well, the Texas elections favor native English speakers, as well as people who are better educated and wealthier, as the details of the Texas Two-Step show.
Not so great a system huh?

I honestly don't like Hillary Clinton. She just seems... slimy...

I found this part of the article rather interesting:
I'm sure you did...


I imagine that they would be concerned. It is always possible that Clinton will do better than 50% to 33%, especially since Edwards (285,000 votes) and the other candidates (50,000 votes) will not be on the ballot.
Well, for once you actually under-estimated where it stands (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_democratic_primary), so kudos for the restraint.

Nevermind that the concern he was expressing was about how to make sure the unprecedentedly large mail in primary is actually secure, since there are questions about how to go about it. But yeah, seeing as Obama has a pattern of shrinking away from states where he starts behind and surrendering to early poll leads, so of course he'd be scared of this...no, wait, that's Clinton.

It's moot, though, because he said he'd abide by whatever the DNC decided instead of insisting on one way or threatening anyone. He just expressed concern for the security of the ballot.

Florida isn't all that abnormal. Clinton has a lead in a state he has not yet campaigned in.

More effects of Clinton's scorched earth policy taking effect, despite CH's ballyhooing about Obama supporters here-
If Hillary Clinton is eventually nominated by the Democrats, just 54% of Obama’s voters say they’d be Very Likely to vote for the former First Lady in a general election contest against John McCain. Another 9% would be Somewhat Likely to vote for Clinton. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Obama voters say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

If Barack Obama is nominated, just 42% of Clinton’s votes say they’d be Very Likely to vote for Obama against McCain. Another 14% would be Somewhat Likely to vote for Obama while 20% say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

What about the cons (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/confusion-rampant-over-te_b_89548.html)?


Not so great a system huh?

It seems like being intolerant is the problem. In fact, none of that is a problem of the system.

I think they mean concerned about the process, silly.

A mail-in-vote is prime to be full of voter fraud, with no real way to track it. And what about ballots that get lost in the mail?

It may be the best solution, but it is far from ideal. Ensuring that everyone who wants to vote gets the chance (and only one chance) is going to be near impossible. This might be the only situation where I think a closed primary is a good thing, though. They have a ready-made mailing list and less fear of people trying to vote in both party's primaries.

Well, and it's no surprise that he skipped this, there is a lot of reason to be concerned about how it's going to be done-

Oregon voters have cast ballots exclusively by mail since 1998. In mail-in elections, voters sign their ballot, which is checked against a state database of voter-registration signatures.

Under the Florida plan, voters would receive ballots about three weeks before the election, Bubriski said. Floridians living overseas, including military personnel, would get ballots 45 days in advance. Ballots must be received by the election date to count.

Florida has 4.8 million registered Democrats, according to the state party. A record 1.7 million Democrats voted in the Jan. 29 primary.
They don't really have the same kind of set up that Oregon has to do its primaries. It's going to be a big undertaking and Obama has been consistent in wanting the election to be fair to the voters.

What works in Obama's strength, organization and mobilization, is the following-

Scott Moore, spokesman for the Oregon Secretary of State's office, said the mail-in system works well but requires significant voter outreach. "You don't want people to say, 'What's this joke ballot?' and toss it in the trash," he said.
Obama has far outstripped Clinton in outreach and could benefit from this quirk.

And this has certainly born out to be true so far in the elections-
Do-overs in Florida or Michigan are unlikely to give either Clinton or Obama the advantage in the delegate fight. "The re-do will result in just a few delegates in one candidate's favor," said Debbie Dingell, a DNC member from Michigan.

(all from the previously linked article.)

So this next bit (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/a_snag_for_proponents_of_a_red.php) comes from the comments on an article, so it has about as much credence as anything we're saying here. I haven't researched his numbers, and it does something I've said is kind of foolish in counting on a demographic (though, often those demographics have come through), but here it is in regards to the redo in Florida-
To get a feel for the hard numbers:

There are about 2,800,000 African-Americans in Florida, about 16% of the population.

Yet, according to MSNBC's exit polls, African-Americans made up about 19% of the primary vote.

In contrast, Tennessee, which also has a 16% proportion of African-Americans, they made up nearly 30%. In Texas, where only 11% of the population is African-American, they made up 19% of primary vote. It stands to reason that a revote would see the African-American vote increased to anywhere from 25% to 32% of the total Democratic vote.

Even more significantly, people in the 18-44 range were severely underrepresented in the Florida results.

It's evident that those who turned out were older whites who work less hours (or not at all), tend to vote in every election anyway, and had more at stake with the property tax initiative which was also on the ballot.

It's no wonder why Clinton apologists only want their "original vote" counted, it counts twice as much with the significant voter depression that occurred.
Now, the only poll I've seen for Florida has Clinton ahead by 55%. I haven't checked the math, but I believe that still doesn't give her enough of an edge to close the gap. And if this is as much of a factor as the poster implies, it most certainly won't be enough.

As I understand it now, Florida has to send the ballots out by mid April to pull this off.

The article talks about Obama roadblocks but doesn't say what those are or what he's done to block a revote.

Again, I haven't checked these numbers so if someone wants to examine them and come to different conclusion, great.

I think you can vote in one or both. It is likely that at least some of the caucus-goers didn't vote in the primary. It's also likely that a lot of them did. Getting anything resembling a good vote number out of that is going to be pretty difficult, unless they actually put out numbers that take it into account.

Caucuses in general put a real monkey wrench into trying to figure out total popular vote. The Texas caucus is a bigger one than most.
No, the receipt you were given when you voted in the primary was your entry ticket to the caucus. You could vote in the primary but skip the caucus (most did) but not the other way around.

For the Texas caucus, the voters had to vote in the primary first.

Why they would allow people to vote twice is beyond me.

The Texas 2 step actually resulted in Obama having more delegates.

As a matter of fact http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/caucus-win-gives-obama-more-texas-delegates-than-clinton/

I love this article from Time (http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-big-state-argument/) magazine as well regarding the debunking of hillary's big state "lead."

It makes the case that we have made repeatedly regarding Obama's ability to turn big states into wins for the Democratic party.

From the article

In each of the 30 primaries and caucuses that Obama has now won, including Mississippi yesterday, he’s shown the ability to motivate Democrats to turn out at the polls, win the support of blue collar voters in suburban and rural communities and attract the support of Independents and Republicans. That’s the kind of candidate Democrats need to nominate to beat John McCain in November, and it’s the kind of leader America needs to bring to Washington the kind of change we can believe in.

The Clinton campaign’s argument ignores relevant facts about how significant a role these states played in determining the outcome of the presidential race in 2004. In fact, Obama has won 7 of 9 of the biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election and have already selected delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention.

More than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. It’s also worth noting that polls in four of these five states show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

Obama Winning Vast Majority of Big States that Were Close in 2004

Nine of the largest states that were decided by a margin of 8 points or less in 2004 have already held a caucus or a primary to select delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver. Obama has won seven of those nine contests – including four that Bush won.

Seriously though, I think it's a matter of trying to combine the pros of both the caucus and the primary system.

presumably, CH's performance art act sees no pros to caucuses. what with the inconveniently demonstrating the utter failure at basic electoral organization on the part of his chosen candidate and all.

Whee! Politics!

The Texas 2 step actually resulted in Obama having more delegates.

As a matter of fact http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/caucus-win-gives-obama-more-texas-delegates-than-clinton/

I love this article from Time (http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-big-state-argument/) magazine as well regarding the debunking of hillary's big state "lead."

It makes the case that we have made repeatedly regarding Obama's ability to turn big states into wins for the Democratic party.

From the article

In each of the 30 primaries and caucuses that Obama has now won, including Mississippi yesterday, he’s shown the ability to motivate Democrats to turn out at the polls, win the support of blue collar voters in suburban and rural communities and attract the support of Independents and Republicans. That’s the kind of candidate Democrats need to nominate to beat John McCain in November, and it’s the kind of leader America needs to bring to Washington the kind of change we can believe in.

The Clinton campaign’s argument ignores relevant facts about how significant a role these states played in determining the outcome of the presidential race in 2004. In fact, Obama has won 7 of 9 of the biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election and have already selected delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention.

More than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. It’s also worth noting that polls in four of these five states show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

Obama Winning Vast Majority of Big States that Were Close in 2004

Nine of the largest states that were decided by a margin of 8 points or less in 2004 have already held a caucus or a primary to select delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver. Obama has won seven of those nine contests – including four that Bush won.
You know, I read your post, and like many, I see the contempt for Hillary, and your edit is nothing different:

Last edited by Liuzzo : Today at 10:00 PM. Reason: Slamming the door on Clinton "electability" argument.

Aren't you, and your fellow malcontents also slamming the "electability" of Obama due to this malady?

Despite CTOAN's earlier posts that suggest that the supporters of either candidate are 75%+ likely to support the losing candidate, could there be a huge problem arising?

According to a recent CTOAN post we have this kind of attitude floating:

If Hillary Clinton is eventually nominated by the Democrats, just 54% of Obama’s voters say they’d be Very Likely to vote for the former First Lady in a general election contest against John McCain. Another 9% would be Somewhat Likely to vote for Clinton. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Obama voters say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

If Barack Obama is nominated, just 42% of Clinton’s votes say they’d be Very Likely to vote for Obama against McCain. Another 14% would be Somewhat Likely to vote for Obama while 20% say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Obama if he is the nominee.
This spells disaster for either camp?

More than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. It’s also worth noting that polls in four of these five states show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

Obama Winning Vast Majority of Big States that Were Close in 2004

Nine of the largest states that were decided by a margin of 8 points or less in 2004 have already held a caucus or a primary to select delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver. Obama has won seven of those nine contests – including four that Bush won.
Lets put an exclamation point on that.

presumably, CH's performance art act sees no pros to caucuses. what with the inconveniently demonstrating the utter failure at basic electoral organization on the part of his chosen candidate and all.
If the cons outweigh the pros, and it appears that is the case, then future caucuses should be re-organized to reflect the democratic principles of your country?

More effects of Clinton's scorched earth policy taking effect, despite CH's ballyhooing about Obama supporters here-If Hillary Clinton is eventually nominated by the Democrats, just 54% of Obama’s voters say they’d be Very Likely to vote for the former First Lady in a general election contest against John McCain. Another 9% would be Somewhat Likely to vote for Clinton. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Obama voters say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

If Barack Obama is nominated, just 42% of Clinton’s votes say they’d be Very Likely to vote for Obama against McCain. Another 14% would be Somewhat Likely to vote for Obama while 20% say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

I'm not sure how you can blame Senator Clinton for this. I see why as an Obama supporter one might wish to cast the blame that way, but do you have any objective evidence that this is Senator Clinton's doing?

Regardless, I find these numbers very troubling. I hope the nominee can reach out to the supporters of the other candidate and unite us against McCain.

If the cons outweigh the pros, and it appears that is the case, then future caucuses should be re-organized to reflect the democratic principles of your country?

the cons of caucuses, or the cons of particular instances of caucuses?

You know, I read your post, and like many, I see the contempt for Hillary, and your edit is nothing different:

Last edited by Liuzzo : Today at 10:00 PM. Reason: Slamming the door on Clinton "electability" argument.

Aren't you, and your fellow malcontents also slamming the "electability" of Obama due to this malady?

Despite CTOAN's earlier posts that suggest that the supporters of either candidate are 75%+ likely to support the losing candidate, could there be a huge problem arising?

According to a recent CTOAN post we have this kind of attitude floating:


This spells disaster for either camp?
So wait, 100 pages of you slagging the electability of Obama, okay. Countering that, "Hillaryhate?" And you don't think the change in those numbers has anything to do with the recent tone of Clinton's campaign? The one where she actually campaigns for McCain? Her kitchen sink/scorched earth campaign style?

Seriously?

So wait, 100 pages of you slagging the electability of Obama, okay. Countering that, "Hillaryhate?" And you don't think the change in those numbers has anything to do with the recent tone of Clinton's campaign? The one where she actually campaigns for McCain? Her kitchen sink/scorched earth campaign style?

Seriously?

pardon my ignorance, but wtf are you talking about?

I'm not sure how you can blame Senator Clinton for this. I see why as an Obama supporter one might wish to cast the blame that way, but do you have any objective evidence that this is Senator Clinton's doing?

The tone of Clinton's campaign is why I blame her for that. Before she adopted the kitchen sink approach, those numbers were 75% that would be satisfied either way.

The tone of Clinton's campaign is why I blame her for that. Before she adopted the kitchen sink approach, those numbers were 75% that would be satisfied either way.

So Clinton's tone is to blame both for her supporters being unwilling to support Obama and Obama supporters being unwilling to support her? I guess that is possible.

Do you have evidence of this shift and its causes?

EDIT: From what I've seen on these forums, there were plenty of Obama voters who were unwilling to support Clinton and at least a few of Clinton supporters not willing to support Obama. I haven't seen any recent shift in these attitudes.

pardon my ignorance, but wtf are you talking about?

I'll admit on the offset, that's hyperbole. It comes from a lot of the criticism in the tone of her attacks on Obama where she essentially says McCain is better prepared to be president than Obama. Now, Obama has made comparisons to how they would do collectively, primarily in relation to lobbyist money where he's better than both Clinton and McCain-in the experience argument McCain out strips Clinton by a mile.

So Clinton's tone is to blame both for her supporters being unwilling to support Obama and Obama supporters being unwilling to support her? I guess that is possible.

Do you have evidence of this shift and its causes?

EDIT: From what I've seen on these forums, there were plenty of Obama voters who were unwilling to support Clinton and at least a few of Clinton supporters not willing to support Obama. I haven't seen any recent shift in these attitudes.

Well, first, I'd say that these forums are a poor sample both for its size and for its selection criteria. Even Clinton's biggest supporter here isn't even an American. The two people battling for Obama here aren't Democrats (I'm not.)

EDIT: Also, both of us have stated that given that she can get close in the popular vote and turn her series of loses into a series of win we would accept her candidacy. I'll grant, to save anyone from having to dig through my post history, that I said I would go back to voting for third party candidates because I feel if I voted for her I'd be voting against McCain more than for her and I decided a while ago that I would not vote against people anymore. This is not a passionate hatred for Clinton that CH would like it to be, and I've agreed that 99% of the policy between the two is the same, but it's tone and approach that are making the difference for me. It's that difference that has made me rooting for a major party candidate for the first time since I started voting.[/edit]


I will also caveat that there are probably a number of causes, including the protracted race, that would continue to polarize the camps. Do I have immediate access to a study that will solidly place the blame on Clinton? No. But I feel fairly confident of drawing that line along divisive campaigning, the kind that they credit Clinton for using to win Ohio and the kind that they keep saying Obama should use. It's a supposition, but it's not one I feel is on very shaky ground.

the cons of caucuses, or the cons of particular instances of caucuses?
The cons of caucuses.

The cons of caucuses.

in that case, notice that you have yet to point any out

in that case, notice that you have yet to point any out

Eh, I'll actually grant that they are kind of goofy. They only represent the people who are free for those few hours, and the whole of those few hours, when the caucus' are held. It removes in some cases the privacy of your vote, which I believe really matters. They're prone to organizational influences on outcomes that a straight ballot isn't. While they have given Obama an edge, they are archaic and not entirely representative and he's scored similar big wins without them (as per your list of 60%+ states) and I have to agree they're problematic. And I have yet to figure out why Texas does both.

So wait, 100 pages of you slagging the electability of Obama, okay. Countering that, "Hillaryhate?" And you don't think the change in those numbers has anything to do with the recent tone of Clinton's campaign? The one where she actually campaigns for McCain? Her kitchen sink/scorched earth campaign style?

Seriously?
There is a difference? I didn't say Obama wasn't electable. I supported the case that Clinton is more electable. I believe that Obama would be a great VP.

I believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket would win the White House, moreso than an Obama/Clinton ticket.

I do believe that Obama has many flaws that people are overlooking. I also realize that Clinton has her own flaws, but collectively, Clinton/Obama will beat the GOP.

Right now...it appears that the Dems are doing whatever they can to lose this election.

Four years ago, Kerry was defeated by GOP propaganda. This year the GOP can sit back and watch the Dem meltdown.

in that case, notice that you have yet to point any out
I did point out some flaws right off the bat, in the article that I quoted. CTOAN has added many more.

There is a difference? I didn't say Obama wasn't electable. I supported the case that Clinton is more electable. I believe that Obama would be a great VP.


There is no discernible difference between Free Soviet's argument about Obama winning 'battleground' states than your assertion that Obama doesn't win states that matter. Rather than address his argument or the evidence supporting it you went all Chris Crocker. C'mon man, at least try.

Eh, I'll actually grant that they are kind of goofy. They only represent the people who are free for those few hours, and the whole of those few hours, when the caucus' are held. It removes in some cases the privacy of your vote, which I believe really matters. They're prone to organizational influences on outcomes that a straight ballot isn't. While they have given Obama an edge, they are archaic and not entirely representative and he's scored similar big wins without them (as per your list of 60%+ states) and I have to agree they're problematic. And I have yet to figure out why Texas does both.

ah, but what they do do is give more say to those willing to put actual effort into the process, build a party's activist base, and motivate more engaged participation and debate among those who do participate. that last part i find particularly compelling, as it strikes me as hitting part of the bedrock fundamentals of everything that motivates democracy in the first place.

plus, secret ballots ain't always that good. they have been used to great effect in breaking the power of unions, for example.

I did point out some flaws right off the bat, in the article that I quoted. CTOAN has added many more.

no, all you've managed to point out the few times i've asked has been possible problems with particular instances of caucuses, rather than the general principle of them. however, others have stepped up to the plate for you each time, and it has led to some interesting discussion.

ah, but what they do do is give more say to those willing to put actual effort into the process, build a party's activist base, and motivate more engaged participation and debate among those who do participate. that last part i find particularly compelling, as it strikes me as hitting part of the bedrock fundamentals of everything that motivates democracy in the first place.

plus, secret ballots ain't always that good. they have been used to great effect in breaking the power of unions, for example.

I think some would argue that it breaks the coercive power of unions, but I can see the power of engaging debate and participation. I just don't know that the vote should be tied that way. I don't see that kind of organizing being effective without the vote being tied that way, but at least I see what you're getting at.

Eh, I'll actually grant that they are kind of goofy. They only represent the people who are free for those few hours, and the whole of those few hours, when the caucus' are held. It removes in some cases the privacy of your vote, which I believe really matters. They're prone to organizational influences on outcomes that a straight ballot isn't. While they have given Obama an edge, they are archaic and not entirely representative and he's scored similar big wins without them (as per your list of 60%+ states) and I have to agree they're problematic. And I have yet to figure out why Texas does both.
You listed quite a few of the flaws in caucuses that I have read about.

More flaws include allowing other parties to elect your leader.

Example.....a Republican has a great fear of Candidate A winning the Dem nomination. He is okay with the Republican candidate, so he votes in a Dem caucus and votes for Candidate B. He convinces a bunch of his friends to do likewise. Legalized hijacking if you ask me.

In the Super Tuesday Caucuses in the midwest and other regions, most of the States like mine the Democrats independants and Republicans were able to vote in the Democratic caucus, I had hundreds of Republicans with Mc Caine Pins on their coats coming in laughing and bragging they all wanted vote for obama, because the obama Ticket can be beaten by the GOP in nov. becuase they will vote for Mc caine then.
They do not want hillary Clinton to have any chances, as they all said they wont have a chance to get mc caine in if hillary is the Democratic nominee
is this being herd of in all you states also?
Sounds like carl Rowe has been busy thinking dirt again to me? What is everyone hearing and seeing. This happend in many states on Super Tuesday and since Democats wont be beat by machines they will be beaten y clever GOP tactics, if we dont get hillary in. Is this where we stand?
I know that it is not entirely coherent, but it expresses my concern.

More:

There is a debate over the effectiveness and usefulness of caucuses in Iowa. One criticism is that the caucuses, especially the Democratic caucus, are a step backwards from the right to a secret ballot.

Democratic caucus participants (though not Republicans, whose caucuses vote by secret ballot) must publicly state their opinion and vote, leading to natural problems such as peer pressure from fellow neighbors and embarrassment over who his/her real pick might be. Another criticism involves the sheer amount of participants' time these events consume.

The Iowa caucus lasts two hours, preventing people who must work, who are sick, or must take care of their children from casting their vote. Absentee voting is also barred, so soldiers who come from Iowa, but must serve in the military lose their vote. The final criticism is the complexity of the rules in terms of how one's vote counts, as it is not a simple popular vote.
There should be a better way.

You listed quite a few of the flaws in caucuses that I have read about.

More flaws include allowing other parties to elect your leader.

Example.....a Republican has a great fear of Candidate A winning the Dem nomination. He is okay with the Republican candidate, so he votes in a Dem caucus and votes for Candidate B. He convinces a bunch of his friends to do likewise. Legalized hijacking if you ask me.


I know that it is not entirely coherent, but it expresses my concern.

More:


There should be a better way.
We'll just file this under "boogety boogety boogety" and move on...

no, all you've managed to point out the few times i've asked has been possible problems with particular instances of caucuses, rather than the general principle of them. however, others have stepped up to the plate for you each time, and it has led to some interesting discussion.
Think what you will.

One more time for you:

Confusion Rampant Over Texas 'Primacaucus' Rules (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/confusion-rampant-over-te_b_89548.html)

Think what you will.

One more time for you:

Confusion Rampant Over Texas 'Primacaucus' Rules (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/confusion-rampant-over-te_b_89548.html)

so your performance art act here now extends to not understanding the difference between particular instances and general types?

I think some would argue that it breaks the coercive power of unions, but I can see the power of engaging debate and participation. I just don't know that the vote should be tied that way. I don't see that kind of organizing being effective without the vote being tied that way, but at least I see what you're getting at.

on the other hand, the secret ballot in union drives also undermines solidarity and makes it easier for the bosses to poach people off with bribes and the like. this is why contrary to every poll ever taken about workplace organizing, so many union drives fail. essentially, it turns the whole thing into a prisoners dilemma rather than collective action

but yeah, basically i think of a local popular assembly as the paradigmatic instance of democracy, while i think of the individualistic mass opinion polling of standard primaries and elections as something of a democratic sham if it is not also backed up by institutions that encourage engagement and active participation and the clear airing of views and disagreements, etc.

so your performance art act here now extends to not understanding the difference between particular instances and general types?
I have posted both and you want to just be confrontational, so who cares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaBarack.jpg

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA that is all I hear on the news (Yes even on FOX). What I want to know is where did Obama even come from. The only time i heard about him was in 04' after he won the senate race against that guy who wanted to ban taxes for black people who had past family working on the cotton fields...I belive his name is Alan Keyes? Anyway it seems this OBAMA MANIA is getting out of hand. His followers cant even give me five things that he did to help us. So what I want to know is why is obama so great and how has he helped the american people.

and people you cant say

1 He's black (he is really bi-racial)
2 He knows how to talk (and so can baby's)
3 He will bring change (And if he isnt elected?)

Help me out :confused::confused:
he came Chicago my hometown!

on the other hand, the secret ballot in union drives also undermines solidarity and makes it easier for the bosses to poach people off with bribes and the like. this is why contrary to every poll ever taken about workplace organizing, so many union drives fail. essentially, it turns the whole thing into a prisoners dilemma rather than collective action

but yeah, basically i think of a local popular assembly as the paradigmatic instance of democracy, while i think of the individualistic mass opinion polling of standard primaries and elections as something of a democratic sham if it is not also backed up by institutions that encourage engagement and active participation and the clear airing of views and disagreements, etc.

I think that this posses an interesting argument for doing Texas' dual primary method in reverse order. Actually getting everyone together and discussing and debating their decisions and choices and establishing an organizational standard and then allowing the participants to then cast their secret ballots.

You listed quite a few of the flaws in caucuses that I have read about.

More flaws include allowing other parties to elect your leader.

Example.....a Republican has a great fear of Candidate A winning the Dem nomination. He is okay with the Republican candidate, so he votes in a Dem caucus and votes for Candidate B. He convinces a bunch of his friends to do likewise. Legalized hijacking if you ask me.


I know that it is not entirely coherent, but it expresses my concern.

More:


There should be a better way.


Hmmm... I notice that you offer no links. One doesn't have to wonder why.

Meanwhile, I've heard your claims echoed both as a reason to vote for Clinton and as a reason to vote for Hillary. Both have those unsupported rumors of Republicans crossing the aisles to get their pick of opponent. Support it. Right now I'm just gonna point and laugh, as is appropriate for the level of support you've offered.

I think that this posses an interesting argument for doing Texas' dual primary method in reverse order. Actually getting everyone together and discussing and debating their decisions and choices and establishing an organizational standard and then allowing the participants to then cast their secret ballots.

yeah, that sounds much better than the standard method

You know, I read your post, and like many, I see the contempt for Hillary, and your edit is nothing different:

Last edited by Liuzzo : Today at 10:00 PM. Reason: Slamming the door on Clinton "electability" argument.

Aren't you, and your fellow malcontents also slamming the "electability" of Obama due to this malady?

Instead of attacking the argument, attack the poster. That is all that CH seems to do when confronted with evidence that shows that Obama is the better candidate over Clinton. The stick your finger in your ears defense is not working CH.

Despite CTOAN's earlier posts that suggest that the supporters of either candidate are 75%+ likely to support the losing candidate, could there be a huge problem arising?

Actually...no.

According to a recent CTOAN post we have this kind of attitude floating:


This spells disaster for either camp?

Only in your mind.

You know, I read your post, and like many, I see the contempt for Hillary, and your edit is nothing different:

Last edited by Liuzzo : Today at 10:00 PM. Reason: Slamming the door on Clinton "electability" argument.

Aren't you, and your fellow malcontents also slamming the "electability" of Obama due to this malady?

Despite CTOAN's earlier posts that suggest that the supporters of either candidate are 75%+ likely to support the losing candidate, could there be a huge problem arising?

According to a recent CTOAN post we have this kind of attitude floating:


This spells disaster for either camp?

You're right, I do not like Hillary. I don't know if I'd go as far as contempt, but I would not vote for her in a house or with a mouse. The article is pretty self explanatory and you seem to have ignored the findings. Obama does better in the overwhelming majority of "big" states that were close in 2004. He even was ahead in 3 won by Bush that were close. It shows that his support is greater than hers in these states, making him more electable. Also, if you look at polls in those states (right or wrong) they show Obama much stronger against McCain than Hillary. Maybe I'd vote or Hillary as a VP, just maybe. As Barack said, "How does the person in second place offer the person in first place the VP?"

I support your right to have an opinion. I also support that it is all right for people to present information on a debate forum that flies in the face of your opinion. You can hold an opinion, and we can turn it into Swiss cheese through all available evidence. The data regarding big states and swing states presented in my post is solid. Looking at the information it would be nearly impossible to seriosuly say Hillary hold the advantage. I'll finish with this I recieved from the Obama campaign.

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

We're ready to take on John McCain. But we also need to build operations in places like Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon that will hold their primaries in April and May.

If the cons outweigh the pros, and it appears that is the case, then future caucuses should be re-organized to reflect the democratic principles of your country?

And what are the cons to caucuses? What are the pros to them? What makes you think that the cons outweigh the pros?

pardon my ignorance, but wtf are you talking about?

I think what CTOAN is saying is that Hillary, in her quest to destroy Obama, has been lavishing some praise on McCain. She's stated that both she and John McCain would be better CinC's than Obama. She has also said they make better presidents who are ready to lead on day 1.

Clinton: McCain And I Have Passed "Commander-In-Chief Threshold"

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_ive_crossed_commanderi.html#more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/clinton-mccain-and-i-hav_n_90310.html

There are others, but I think you get the point and are smart enough to google search yourself. She's praise McCain, certainly giving him ammo in the general election against her and Barack. She's doing the work of the opposition party to quench her need for power. It is scorched earth politics that Barack has campaigned against. She's willing to burn down the farm and pick up the specks that are left.

There is a difference? I didn't say Obama wasn't electable. I supported the case that Clinton is more electable. I believe that Obama would be a great VP.

I believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket would win the White House, moreso than an Obama/Clinton ticket.

I do believe that Obama has many flaws that people are overlooking. I also realize that Clinton has her own flaws, but collectively, Clinton/Obama will beat the GOP.

Right now...it appears that the Dems are doing whatever they can to lose this election.

Four years ago, Kerry was defeated by GOP propaganda. This year the GOP can sit back and watch the Dem meltdown.

It's basically your gut feeling against the evidence. The links I provided dismantle your "opinion" that Hillary is more electable than Obama better than any of us here could have hoped for. We laid out much of the same info, but they did it in a more concise way. So we are directly attacking your premise that Hillary is more electable. We are doing so based on the evidence of actual primary results, current polling data vs. McCain, and the slim divide that loomed in 2004. All of these elements directly slap your argument in the face with a strong pimp-hand.

You listed quite a few of the flaws in caucuses that I have read about.

More flaws include allowing other parties to elect your leader.

Example.....a Republican has a great fear of Candidate A winning the Dem nomination. He is okay with the Republican candidate, so he votes in a Dem caucus and votes for Candidate B. He convinces a bunch of his friends to do likewise. Legalized hijacking if you ask me.


I know that it is not entirely coherent, but it expresses my concern.

More:


There should be a better way.

Your argument regarding the other party picking your representative fails on multiple levels. First, both primaries and caucuses have events that are open for anyone to vote in and closed to a particular party. This is not a difference between caucuses and primaries in general. Second, this has worked in Hillary's favor as people from Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh pushed people to go out and vote for Hillary.

Hmmm... I notice that you offer no links. One doesn't have to wonder why.

Meanwhile, I've heard your claims echoed both as a reason to vote for Clinton and as a reason to vote for Hillary. Both have those unsupported rumors of Republicans crossing the aisles to get their pick of opponent. Support it. Right now I'm just gonna point and laugh, as is appropriate for the level of support you've offered.
It would be easier just to ask for a link, but your MO too often seems to require injecting derogatory comment. At any rate, perhaps you should try a better method?

Republican at a Texas Democrat Caucus (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/republican_at_a_texas_democrat.html)

The Texas Democrat caucus process is odd. After the polls close, those who wish, crowd into a too-small space, find the table that corresponds to their precinct number, and sign-in for the candidate for whom they voted. That's it, except for those who want to stay and help elect a delegate to walk down that yellow brick road. That's for the professional supporters. Someone asked me if was going to stay for the delegate selection. "I can't do that!" I said. "I'm a Republican." Got a funny look. Someone else from my subdivision asked if I was going to vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. "Heck no," I said, "I'm voting for McCain." Another funny look. Hi ho.

I'm betting there were thousands of us obstructionists Republicans who crossed over and voted Democrat yesterday in Texas. We were surrounded by fellow Texacans for whom we meant no disrespect. None. But we did most definitely mean a bit of harm to the Democrat we voted against.
More democracy in action (http://reporternews.com/news/2008/mar/05/the-texas-two-step/):

"This is the best turnout (at a precinct convention) since at least the '90s," said election Judge Clinton Nix. He attributed a significant portion of the turnout to Republicans voting in the Democratic primary, possibly to sway who the Republican candidate will face in November.
From the peanut gallery (http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/communities/listening_post/entries/2008/03/05/state_party_says_democratic_ca.html):

That’s quiet funny and very arrogant of the democrats. I guess they didn’t consider that McCain has the nomination in the bag already. They also didn’t consider that many Republican’s crossed over to throw a wrench into the democratic caucus by voting for Hitlery.
Same peanut gallery:

The Repbulicans voted for Obama about 54-46 percent in Texas. How is that sabotage against him. Hillary has won the Democrats vote on a consistent basis. It is the other side that has tried to stop her until Texas. And don’t worry, they will again try to stop her because they know she would be a more formidable opponent in November. Hillary is the brightest candidate left. Hillary in ‘08.
More (http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/feb/11/republican_caucus/):

He also said he was not worried about irregularities in the caucus results, despite the fact that three counties caucused at the location. Republican voters who changed their registration to vote in the Democratic caucus were allowed to vote in the Republican caucus.
More yet to come....

Instead of attacking the argument, attack the poster. That is all that CH seems to do when confronted with evidence that shows that Obama is the better candidate over Clinton. The stick your finger in your ears defense is not working CH.

Actually...no.

Only in your mind.
And this post of yours added what to the enrichment of this thread? Oh, thats right....nothing. Carry on....

And this post of yours added what to the enrichment of this thread? Oh, thats right....nothing. Carry on....

I haven't been here long, but in reading the whole thread, it looks like you lost, and badly.

It would be easier just to ask for a link, but your MO too often seems to require injecting derogatory comment. At any rate, perhaps you should try a better method?

Republican at a Texas Democrat Caucus (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/republican_at_a_texas_democrat.html)


More democracy in action (http://reporternews.com/news/2008/mar/05/the-texas-two-step/):


From the peanut gallery (http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/communities/listening_post/entries/2008/03/05/state_party_says_democratic_ca.html):

As I've pointed out this is done in primaries as well as caucuses.


Same peanut gallery:


More (http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/feb/11/republican_caucus/):


More yet to come....

primaries and caucuses do the same when they are open.

I haven't been here long, but in reading the whole thread, it looks like you lost, and badly.

"Now now, we can't say he lost because it's his opinion." Also, he has already stated that it doesn't matter how many people here think he's wrong because it's an opinion that cannot be proven wrong until November.

;)

Now, there has been much evidence to support my position that Obama trumps Hillary on all accounts. While CH is entitled to his opinion, it has been found lacking in substantial support. The contrary seems to be quite true. While CH can have an opinion, his opinion is more than likely unfounded. That is why we debate on this debate forum. To promote the strong ideas and kill the weak ones. I have now decided to trick out his queen to Elliot Spitzer. She'll be a dirty little girl for him just like he likes it.

Has anybody ever really listened to one of Obama's speeches??? In my opinion they contain nothig but one-liners from every poitical speech going bact to Herbert (a chicken in every pot) Hoover. For example..."We have nothing to fear but fear itself" (FDR) or "We shall bring about a new culture of hope" (JFK)...heck I've even heard him quoting modern day children's programs..."Can we do it? Yes, we can!" (Bob the builder)...Is this what's got everybody's panties so torqued that they're having Obasms???? :headbang::headbang::headbang:

primaries and caucuses do the same when they are open.
And this is a good thing?

And this post of yours added what to the enrichment of this thread? Oh, thats right....nothing. Carry on....

Yup. Nothing to see here folks. CH has been defeated and debunked all throughout the thread.

Has anybody ever really listened to one of Obama's speeches??? In my opinion they contain nothig but one-liners from every poitical speech going bact to Herbert (a chicken in every pot) Hoover. For example..."We have nothing to fear but fear itself" (FDR) or "We shall bring about a new culture of hope" (JFK)...heck I've even heard him quoting modern day children's programs..."Can we do it? Yes, we can!" (Bob the builder)...Is this what's got everybody's panties so torqued that they're having Obasms???? :headbang::headbang::headbang:

Either that or we have actually done research and based off said research, support Obama. Maybe you should try it instead of listening to soundbites. Expand your mind beyond what is being reported on TV.

And this is a good thing?

There are pros and cons to being in either an open or closed primaries. Frankly, I wish PA was an open one so that I can actually cast a ballot. All I can do is cast a ballot on the Republican side and that race is already sewed up so what difference does that make.

There are pros and cons to being in either an open or closed primaries. Frankly, I wish PA was an open one so that I can actually cast a ballot. All I can do is cast a ballot on the Republican side and that race is already sewed up so what difference does that make.

You could still vote for Paul.













Can't believe I managed to say that with a straight face...

You could still vote for Paul.













Can't believe I managed to say that with a straight face...

Ron Paul has also dropped out and I would not vote for him even if he was the only candidate running.

Ron Paul has also dropped out and I would not vote for him even if he was the only candidate running.

Has he officially dropped out? I thought the last news was he was hinting at it.

I want to vote for Kristen. She looks like she has a good head on her shoulders.

I have posted both and you want to just be confrontational, so who cares.

all of your complaints, such as they are, have been directed not at the concept of caucuses, but at instances of caucuses, except for one vague hand-wave about 'democracy' which you never came back to fill out further. you point out problems with implementation. that is important but not to the argument you are making.

and your most recent complaint is against the concept of any sort of 'open' primary process, both regular primaries and caucuses.

Has anybody ever really listened to one of Obama's speeches??? In my opinion they contain nothig but one-liners from every poitical speech going bact to Herbert (a chicken in every pot) Hoover. For example..."We have nothing to fear but fear itself" (FDR) or "We shall bring about a new culture of hope" (JFK)...heck I've even heard him quoting modern day children's programs..."Can we do it? Yes, we can!" (Bob the builder)...Is this what's got everybody's panties so torqued that they're having Obasms???? :headbang::headbang::headbang:

id guess that you havent listened to very many political speeches.

And this is a good thing?

I didn't say it was a good thing. I just wanted to point out that you were wrong in claiming that it was a con of a caucus, thereby inferring it wasn't for a primary. I do not necessarily see it as a horrible thing. Being that I do not stick hard and fast to a particular party, I'd like to support the candidate of my choice regardless of my party affiliation. Some will use this to do ill, while others will use it just to have their voices heard.

It would be easier just to ask for a link, but your MO too often seems to require injecting derogatory comment. At any rate, perhaps you should try a better method?

Republican at a Texas Democrat Caucus (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/republican_at_a_texas_democrat.html)


More democracy in action (http://reporternews.com/news/2008/mar/05/the-texas-two-step/):


From the peanut gallery (http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/communities/listening_post/entries/2008/03/05/state_party_says_democratic_ca.html):


Same peanut gallery:


More (http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/feb/11/republican_caucus/):


More yet to come....

Perfect, thanks for supporting my claim.

See, this is how it works. You posted something that suggested Republicans were crossing the aisle to vote for Obama. I said, I've heard people say it's goes both ways. You post a link, and that link shows a person admitting they were voting for Hillary, supporting my point. See why you're losing the argument?

By the way, I love the hypocrisy in the comment about my MO. Want me to go back through the thread and pick out your derogatory comments? Want me to go back through thread and show the number of times you jumped right over arguments just to alternate between claiming you're a victim because people ask you to support your claims and occasionally snipe to attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.

Why, at one point, it seems the crux of your argument was "Corny supported the war so who cares if Hillary did".

So we're clear - the conversation thus far -

You listed quite a few of the flaws in caucuses that I have read about.

More flaws include allowing other parties to elect your leader.

Example.....a Republican has a great fear of Candidate A winning the Dem nomination. He is okay with the Republican candidate, so he votes in a Dem caucus and votes for Candidate B. He convinces a bunch of his friends to do likewise. Legalized hijacking if you ask me.


In the Super Tuesday Caucuses in the midwest and other regions, most of the States like mine the Democrats independants and Republicans were able to vote in the Democratic caucus, I had hundreds of Republicans with Mc Caine Pins on their coats coming in laughing and bragging they all wanted vote for obama, because the obama Ticket can be beaten by the GOP in nov. becuase they will vote for Mc caine then.
They do not want hillary Clinton to have any chances, as they all said they wont have a chance to get mc caine in if hillary is the Democratic nominee
is this being herd of in all you states also?
Sounds like carl Rowe has been busy thinking dirt again to me? What is everyone hearing and seeing. This happend in many states on Super Tuesday and since Democats wont be beat by machines they will be beaten y clever GOP tactics, if we dont get hillary in. Is this where we stand?

I know that it is not entirely coherent, but it expresses my concern.

More:



There is a debate over the effectiveness and usefulness of caucuses in Iowa. One criticism is that the caucuses, especially the Democratic caucus, are a step backwards from the right to a secret ballot.

Democratic caucus participants (though not Republicans, whose caucuses vote by secret ballot) must publicly state their opinion and vote, leading to natural problems such as peer pressure from fellow neighbors and embarrassment over who his/her real pick might be. Another criticism involves the sheer amount of participants' time these events consume.

The Iowa caucus lasts two hours, preventing people who must work, who are sick, or must take care of their children from casting their vote. Absentee voting is also barred, so soldiers who come from Iowa, but must serve in the military lose their vote. The final criticism is the complexity of the rules in terms of how one's vote counts, as it is not a simple popular vote.

There should be a better way.

Now, the amusing bit to me was that this suggests Obama doesn't legitimately win the caucuses and that this problem is unique to caucuses. Of course, it's not unique, it's a problem across the board. And, of course when you provided a link, the people who admitted to actually crossing party lines to anti-vote, voted for Hillary. Sometimes I swear you think we'll forget what you said. When you finally offer support for you claims, your claims have to shift to make that support make any sense at all.

http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=1442810&showlnk=0

http://www.uploadhouse.com/viewfile.php?id=1442810&showlnk=0

I sincerely despise childish jokes like that one. How dare a woman run for President, right?

Would anyone think it was funny if there was a joke that said something about Obama being a ******? I know I wouldn't.

I sincerely despise childish jokes like that one. How dare a woman run for President, right?

Would anyone think it was funny if there was a joke that said something about Obama being a ******? I know I wouldn't.

I think it's appropriate, considering all the "funding" she's received over the years from less than appropriate sources. And if I add in how she pimped her own daughter to a young superdelegate in the hopes of winning his vote...

So far, from outside evidence and from your own, if it wasn't for this boogey man of 'obstructionist voting' Clinton would have faired even worse in the Texas caucus.


Republican at a Texas Democrat Caucus (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/republican_at_a_texas_democrat.html)
This guy was there to vote for Clinton. He only met one other guy, and that guy was there to give his legitimate support. I used to live down the street from a Bigfoot museum where a guy was willing to bet there were hundreds of the creature in the very woods I lived in.


More democracy in action (http://reporternews.com/news/2008/mar/05/the-texas-two-step/):
More than 200 Democrats met in precinct conventions at Hillcrest. The Republicans numbered 19. Before each person could enter the room, they had to show a voter registration form with Democrat or Republican marked on it showing they had voted in the primary.
The only solid number in your 'evidence' so far. 10% underwhelms me, especially since we don't know how many of them are actually obstructionist and how many are there for genuine support. So far we've seen 1:1, there was an obstructionist there for Clinton and a genuine. He didn't mention who the genuine voted for.





From the peanut gallery (http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/communities/listening_post/entries/2008/03/05/state_party_says_democratic_ca.html):
By a troll
Kinda says it all, really. That's not my assessment, that's what it says.


Same peanut gallery:


More (http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/feb/11/republican_caucus/):


More yet to come....Meh, I lost what you were quoting here. I read the last article and it largely deals with people not being familiar with caucus' because the state decided to caucus to save money feeling they wouldn't have an influence on the election.

There are a few things that come clear. Your concern for 'spoiler' voting still remains rampant speculation, and it isn't clear who recieved the most benefit from said 'spoiler vote.' It's not unreasonable to presume that any of that effect cancels itself out. Out of the 19 people there of 200 in the only concrete number we have, if half of them were genuine supporters based again on the only real sample we have, and one was there for Clinton and one, lets say troll guy, was there for Obama, the end result of one bonus vote, lets be generous and say Obama, doesn't really create the narrative of sway that you're trying to create.

And while you've painted this as a flaw with caucus' this is in fact a flaw with open primaries in general.

Some of the articles point to difficulties that are not so much problems with caucus' as much as they are unpreparedness for the turnout.

But most important, hats off to you for successfully dodging the salient point, the one that addresses and dismisses your 'winning the important state' argument by creating another sideshow on caucus'-


It makes the case that we have made repeatedly regarding Obama's ability to turn big states into wins for the Democratic party.

From the article

In each of the 30 primaries and caucuses that Obama has now won, including Mississippi yesterday, he’s shown the ability to motivate Democrats to turn out at the polls, win the support of blue collar voters in suburban and rural communities and attract the support of Independents and Republicans. That’s the kind of candidate Democrats need to nominate to beat John McCain in November, and it’s the kind of leader America needs to bring to Washington the kind of change we can believe in.

The Clinton campaign’s argument ignores relevant facts about how significant a role these states played in determining the outcome of the presidential race in 2004. In fact, Obama has won 7 of 9 of the biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election and have already selected delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention.

More than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. It’s also worth noting that polls in four of these five states show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

Obama Winning Vast Majority of Big States that Were Close in 2004

Nine of the largest states that were decided by a margin of 8 points or less in 2004 have already held a caucus or a primary to select delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver. Obama has won seven of those nine contests – including four that Bush won.
Regardless of the legitimacy or problems with caucus', a great deal of your argument has relied on electability. This direct address goes ignored with a little bit of Chris Crocker nonsense and then this lengthy bit on caucus'.

I want to vote for Kristen. She looks like she has a good head on her shoulders.

I want to vote for Ryadn, (s)he's going to let me write policy :D

"Now now, we can't say he lost because it's his opinion." Also, he has already stated that it doesn't matter how many people here think he's wrong because it's an opinion that cannot be proven wrong until November.
And you can say for a fact that Obama will win the red states as discussed earlier and that you can declare for a fact that Obama will win the general election in November?

Now, there has been much evidence to support my position that Obama trumps Hillary on all accounts.
What "evidence" do you have that Obama will in fact do better than Hillary if he wins the nomination?

"While CH is entitled to his opinion, it has been found lacking in substantial support.
Yet, you cannot prove that my opinion is indeed wrong.

"The contrary seems to be quite true.
In your opinion.

While CH can have an opinion, his opinion is more than likely unfounded.
I like your use of the words "more than likely". It casts some doubt upon your opinion.

That is why we debate on this debate forum. To promote the strong ideas and kill the weak ones.
Hmmm...I always thought that the purpose of debate was to bring all sides of an issue into the light for frank evaluation, deliberation, and discussion.

I have now decided to trick out his queen to Elliot Spitzer. She'll be a dirty little girl for him just like he likes it.
You seem to have some strange fantasies running around inside your head? :p

I sincerely despise childish jokes like that one. How dare a woman run for President, right?

I don't know, I thought it was funny...
In poor taste, but kinda funny.

Would anyone think it was funny if there was a joke that said something about Obama being a ******? I know I wouldn't.

It would depend upon how it was done...

I think it's appropriate, considering all the "funding" she's received over the years from less than appropriate sources. And if I add in how she pimped her own daughter to a young superdelegate in the hopes of winning his vote...

Yup, she's a whore, and a bitch, and every other derogatory and bigotted term we have for women. I mean, why not? She's running against that ******, Obama, and that slaveowner, McCain?

Yup, she's a whore, and a bitch, and every other derogatory and bigotted term we have for women. I mean, why not? She's running against that ******, Obama, and that slaveowner, McCain?

Pimp isn't something that women usually get called, and I'm calling her a pimp for pimping out her daughter for superdelegate votes.

And apparently, she's a whore for corporate money, just like every other Senator out there, including illicit donations from dry cleaners who are better at laundering large amounts of cash than cleaning clothing.

Sorry, there isn't a comparable slur for behavior for African-Americans. The N word doesn't imply some sort of illicit action, as we have seen time and again with Hillary.

And you can say for a fact that Obama will win the red states as discussed earlier and that you can declare for a fact that Obama will win the general election in November?

He said that? Quote him.


What "evidence" do you have that Obama will in fact do better than Hillary if he wins the nomination?

We've shown you the evidence. You've thoroughly reviewed the evidence. Are you actually going to pretend none has been presented?



Yet, you cannot prove that my opinion is indeed wrong.

The evidence certainly suggests it is, however. I love that you keep using the word "prove". I can't "prove" gravity exists, but I sure make sure I set my glass of water on a table.


In your opinion.


I like your use of the words "more than likely". It casts some doubt upon your opinion.

He adds that because you've not demonstrated that it IS founded. That doesn't make it impossible for it to be founded. However, it's only reasonable that we treat as unfounded. And we are.


Hmmm...I always thought that the purpose of debate was to bring all sides of an issue into the light for frank evaluation, deliberation, and discussion.

Oh, no. Because we people disagree with you, they're "shouting you down".

The purpose of debate isn't just to bring all sides, but to bring up all evidence. According to you, this is a bad thing. The purpose of debate is very much to damage weak ideas.

So far, from outside evidence and from your own, if it wasn't for this boogey man of 'obstructionist voting' Clinton would have faired even worse in the Texas caucus.

This guy was there to vote for Clinton. He only met one other guy, and that guy was there to give his legitimate support. I used to live down the street from a Bigfoot museum where a guy was willing to bet there were hundreds of the creature in the very woods I lived in.



The only solid number in your 'evidence' so far. 10% underwhelms me, especially since we don't know how many of them are actually obstructionist and how many are there for genuine support. So far we've seen 1:1, there was an obstructionist there for Clinton and a genuine. He didn't mention who the genuine voted for.






Kinda says it all, really. That's not my assessment, that's what it says.

Meh, I lost what you were quoting here. I read the last article and it largely deals with people not being familiar with caucus' because the state decided to caucus to save money feeling they wouldn't have an influence on the election.

There are a few things that come clear. Your concern for 'spoiler' voting still remains rampant speculation, and it isn't clear who recieved the most benefit from said 'spoiler vote.' It's not unreasonable to presume that any of that effect cancels itself out. Out of the 19 people there of 200 in the only concrete number we have, if half of them were genuine supporters based again on the only real sample we have, and one was there for Clinton and one, lets say troll guy, was there for Obama, the end result of one bonus vote, lets be generous and say Obama, doesn't really create the narrative of sway that you're trying to create.

And while you've painted this as a flaw with caucus' this is in fact a flaw with open primaries in general.

Some of the articles point to difficulties that are not so much problems with caucus' as much as they are unpreparedness for the turnout.

But most important, hats off to you for successfully dodging the salient point, the one that addresses and dismisses your 'winning the important state' argument by creating another sideshow on caucus'-

Regardless of the legitimacy or problems with caucus', a great deal of your argument has relied on electability. This direct address goes ignored with a little bit of Chris Crocker nonsense and then this lengthy bit on caucus'.

Thank you for recognizing his desire to ignore information that absolutely destroys his argument. I'm still pimping out his queen to all those who wish to give her a thrashing.

Alrighty, now here's a question for almost all that should provide a little change from the CH vs the world movement of this thread.

IMO, the Dems are headed towards a civil war of even greater than 1968 proportions. Assuming the current trends continue, and Obama wins bothe the popular vote and the pledged delegates, and my understanding that the rules have now closed the window on a conventional re-do (correct me if I'm wrong - a re-do would require 90 days and would have had to have been set in motion before now to meet the 6/10 cut off), how can the MI and FLA delegates fight be settled without pissing off the either state or either camp to the point of '68ing the whole thing? Is there a solution?

Alrighty, now here's a question for almost all that should provide a little change from the CH vs the world movement of this thread.

IMO, the Dems are headed towards a civil war of even greater than 1968 proportions. Assuming the current trends continue, and Obama wins bothe the popular vote and the pledged delegates, and my understanding that the rules have now closed the window on a conventional re-do (correct me if I'm wrong - a re-do would require 90 days and would have had to have been set in motion before now to meet the 6/10 cut off), how can the MI and FLA delegates fight be settled without pissing off the either state or either camp to the point of '68ing the whole thing? Is there a solution?

I think the 1968 thing is unavoidable. I believe that Obama will come into the convention with the most votes, but Hillary will pull a backroom deal with superdelegates in a most un-Democratic (two meanings there) manner.

Riots will ensue.

I think there will be re-do's. I think those wheels are in motion. I also expect to see Hillary's concession before the convention. I'm not certain, but think she'll stop pulling down the cathedral if it looks like it's actually going to come down.

I think there will be re-do's. I think those wheels are in motion. I also expect to see Hillary's concession before the convention. I'm not certain, but think she'll stop pulling down the cathedral if it looks like it's actually going to come down.

You've got a lot more faith in her than I do. I think that as long as the race remains "close," she'll be in it until the end. If she was going to pull out, I think'd she would have already done it.

I think there will be re-do's. I think those wheels are in motion. I also expect to see Hillary's concession before the convention. I'm not certain, but think she'll stop pulling down the cathedral if it looks like it's actually going to come down.

No, she'll do everything she can to get her way.

She's one of those people who believes the rules do not apply to her.

The classic example she gave was cleaning out Vincent Foster's office by kicking the FBI and police out of Foster's office, then going through the office and cleaning it out of all references to anything remotely connected to her, taking the boxes of documents, and telling the FBI to stay the fuck out of the office until she was done.

The race is close and it's really not time for her to pull out yet. I really think she was right to stay in till Ohio. Now, clearly Ohio didn't do as much as she thought it would originally, but certainly there is an excellent argument for her still being in it. I think it was a mistake to not go after Wyoming and Mississippi though. I think it means that no matter what she's going to have to pull out after PA, and I think we'll see that.

She's not going to make the gains she needs in PA and I think that it will be time for the smoky rooms.

You've got a lot more faith in her than I do. I think that as long as the race remains "close," she'll be in it until the end. If she was going to pull out, I think'd she would have already done it.

Personally, I'm going to have to agree with Telesha on this one, it's my feeling that you are giving HRC way too much credit here...

And you can say for a fact that Obama will win the red states as discussed earlier and that you can declare for a fact that Obama will win the general election in November?

No, I cannot definitively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he will win those states. What I can do is predent information that shows a correlation between primary/caucus wins, states with slim margins in 2004 that can be flipped more likely than not, and current polls showing head to head match-ups between Obama and McCain broken down by individual states. If you can find a more reliable method that is more comprehensive than that please present it. As of now the information you have tried to use has been found lacking by everyone here. Contrary to your stance that, "just because everyone else thinks I'm wrong doesn't mean I am." When everyone debating with you thinks you are wrong, you probably are.


What "evidence" do you have that Obama will in fact do better than Hillary if he wins the nomination?

Evidence is used to preset a point. It is not a material things in this case because the election has not happened. Your argument would work great in a philosophy class, but it sucks here and we all know it.


Yet, you cannot prove that my opinion is indeed wrong.

No, in fact wrong is impossible at this point. What I can do is present great, detailed analysis of the current trends and possible outcomes. Look at my evidence and say honestly that it does not point strongly to Obama having the upper hand. Like I said, if you have a more comprehensive analytical method than the one I am using then present it. As of now your evidence sucks.


In your opinion.

Yes, but I've backed up my opinion with more than "nuh uh."


I like your use of the words "more than likely". It casts some doubt upon your opinion.

Of course I said "more than likely." You cannot prove causation here because it is not static. I did make a great case by using the information available currently. I think people here regard my evidence to be drastically superior to yours.




Hmmm...I always thought that the purpose of debate was to bring all sides of an issue into the light for frank evaluation, deliberation, and discussion.

It is, but when you refuse to admit your opinion has been found lacking it makes it tough. You present an alternative view and support it with articles from "Hillbilly Jim in Texas" as your evidence.
You seem to have some strange fantasies running around inside your head? :p

HOW ABOUT SOME FIRE FOR YOUR SCARECROW?

Yeah, I'm sorry. The Elliot Spitzer joke isn't relevant at the current time.

I'm trying to understand what your point is here. Your argument has been that Hillary is more electable than Obama. Can I prove your opinion to be wrong? Clearly not because that would require time travel. Can I show a very strong case that you are likely wrong? I have. I'll go back to my last points for you and see if you can refute what the evidence suggests. Don't give me your usual avoidence of the information presented. So far you've done a piss poor job of trying to refute me rather than my evidence. So here it is again.

(CNN) — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has won the Texas Democratic caucuses and will get more delegates out of the state than his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state's primary, according to CNN estimates.

Under the Texas Democratic Party's complex delegate selection plan, Texas voters participated in both a primary and caucuses on March 4. Two-thirds of the state's 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses.

An additional 35 superdelegates were not tied to either contest. Clinton, of New York, defeated Obama in the primary by a 51-47 percent margin. But results of the caucuses were up in the air on election night and for several days afterward, due to state party rules that did not require local caucus officials to report their results to a centralized location.

Partial caucus results, representing 41 percent of all caucus precincts, showed Obama last week with 56 percent of the county-level delegates chosen at the caucuses to 44 percent for Clinton. The state party says it will not be able to provide a further breakdown of the caucus results from March 4.

After a comprehensive review of these results, CNN estimates that Obama won more support from Texas caucus-goers than Clinton. Based on the state party's tally, Obama's caucus victory translates into 38 national convention delegates, compared to 29 for Clinton.

And though Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the primary, 65 to 61, Obama's wider delegate margin in the caucuses gives him the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 — or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.

CNN's estimate is based on a statistical review, which combined the county-level results provided by the state party with data from the U.S. Census, exit polls and telephone surveys.

That analysis showed that the counties that reported data to the state party last week appear to be a representative cross-section of the Texas population. The analysis also indicates that areas that were won by Obama reported results at essentially the same rate as areas that were won by Clinton.

Every procedure used to statistically model the outcome of the caucuses indicated that Obama had more support than Clinton.

The next step in the delegate-selection process will occur on March 29, when the county-level delegates chosen at the March 4 caucuses will meet in county conventions held across the state. CNN will closely monitor those events and will adjust its delegate estimate for Obama and Clinton, if necessary, based on those results at that time. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/caucus-win-gives-obama-more-texas-delegates-than-clinton/)

FR: Iowa Governor Chet Culver, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill

DT: Wednesday, March 12, 2008

RE: Debunking the Clinton Campaign’s Dubious “Big State” Spin

In an attempt to minimize the significance of Barack Obama’s success in winning more than twice as many states as Senator Clinton, her campaign’s supporters have attempted to diminish the importance of the states where Senator Obama has prevailed.

Senator Obama has scored important victories in each of our states – states that will play a decisive role in deciding whether or not John McCain will be given the chance to enter the White House and extend George Bush’s failed policies for another 4 years.

In each of the 30 primaries and caucuses that Obama has now won, including Mississippi yesterday, he’s shown the ability to motivate Democrats to turn out at the polls, win the support of blue collar voters in suburban and rural communities and attract the support of Independents and Republicans. That’s the kind of candidate Democrats need to nominate to beat John McCain in November, and it’s the kind of leader America needs to bring to Washington the kind of change we can believe in.

The Clinton campaign’s argument ignores relevant facts about how significant a role these states played in determining the outcome of the presidential race in 2004. In fact, Obama has won 7 of 9 of the biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election and have already selected delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention.

More than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. It’s also worth noting that polls in four of these five states show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

Obama Winning Vast Majority of Big States that Were Close in 2004

Nine of the largest states that were decided by a margin of 8 points or less in 2004 have already held a caucus or a primary to select delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver. Obama has won seven of those nine contests – including four that Bush won.


Clinton Totals Padded by States Where Obama Does Best Against McCain

The Clinton campaign’s misleading argument about the importance of her performance in the largest states actually highlights the limits of her appeal and her ability to win the general election.

To turn the Clinton argument around, more than 55% of her popular vote total and nearly half of her pledged delegates have come in just five states. In four of them, polls show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton. In the fifth, Texas, Clinton admitted that she didn’t expect it to be “in the general election calculation.” (http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-big-state-argument/)

http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/chart1.jpg

http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/chart2.jpg

I think there will be re-do's. I think those wheels are in motion.

The question I have re that is how? As I stated above, according to my understanding of the rules, it's to late in the game for a re-do. They have to be done by June 10 and need 90 days, as far as I understand it. At this point, any form of seating the delegates including a re-do, would require breaking the party rules. That'd risk either the stink of a backroom deal, Dem civil war full steam ahead no matter which way it went. Not having a re-do or spliting the votes 50-50 thumbs the proverbial nose at MI and FLA. And seating the delegates as "elected" would be even worse. (>.<)

(My sentiments aside, HRC is responsible for this situation. She agrreed to it in the fall, but wants to change the rules when she's loosing. Doesn't matter who you are, that's not cricket...)

Alrighty, now here's a question for almost all that should provide a little change from the CH vs the world movement of this thread.

IMO, the Dems are headed towards a civil war of even greater than 1968 proportions. Assuming the current trends continue, and Obama wins bothe the popular vote and the pledged delegates, and my understanding that the rules have now closed the window on a conventional re-do (correct me if I'm wrong - a re-do would require 90 days and would have had to have been set in motion before now to meet the 6/10 cut off), how can the MI and FLA delegates fight be settled without pissing off the either state or either camp to the point of '68ing the whole thing? Is there a solution?

The 90 day thing is a bit my fault, 90 days is what they need for a full tilt primary redo. They have to get the mail in ballots out 45 days before they're due, and it seems increasingly likely that Florida will do just that. Michigan has backed itself into a corner and when Florida's redo is approved they will have to do something since they have the least legitimate claim. They may have screwed themselves into having to do a caucus, but they might be able to pull off a firehouse primary in time, but it will likely be riddled with problems.

The problem is that both of these solutions will brush against the June deadline, so I don't see Clinton bowing out before they have their say, and there is a weak but legitimate argument for her doing just that (unless somehow she loses Pennsylvania, after which she'll be pressured into quiting and the super-delegate ship jumping becomes rampant. I see that as a long shot, even a marginal victory will keep her in the race.).

However, shortly after June 10th we will see a decision. She'll either have shored up her support or she'll bow out and now have the really difficult job of undoing the damage that she's done. She'll have to throw her support behind someone she's already said McCain is better qualified than. (not as if, at this point, Obama's job would be any easier).

The question I have re that is how? As I stated above, according to my understanding of the rules, it's to late in the game for a re-do. They have to be done by June 10 and need 90 days, as far as I understand it. At this point, any form of seating the delegates including a re-do, would require breaking the party rules. That'd risk either the stink of a backroom deal, Dem civil war full steam ahead no matter which way it went. Not having a re-do or spliting the votes 50-50 thumbs the proverbial nose at MI and FLA. And seating the delegates as "elected" would be even worse. (>.<)

(My sentiments aside, HRC is responsible for this situation. She agrreed to it in the fall, but wants to change the rules when she's loosing. Doesn't matter who you are, that's not cricket...)

No, it's the states fault and the party's fault for assuming that this would be wrapped up and the seating a non-issue. It's the states fault for being stubborn and arrogant and the parties fault for not recognizing the potential for a close race and dealing with this as something to be resolved as soon as it became apparent, and not at the last second.

Clinton's flip on the subject only reflects on her, but didn't cause this situation.

No, it's the states fault and the party's fault for assuming that this would be wrapped up and the seating a non-issue. It's the states fault for being stubborn and arrogant and the parties fault for not recognizing the potential for a close race and dealing with this as something to be resolved as soon as it became apparent, and not at the last second.

Clinton's flip on the subject only reflects on her, but didn't cause this situation.

Granted. She's not completely responsible for the origins of the mess. However, who's the one who didn't remove her name from the ballot? Who's the one who's now arguing that a ballot with only her name on it was fair and should be respected? She bears responsibility for the current mess.

The 90 day thing is a bit my fault, 90 days is what they need for a full tilt primary redo. They have to get the mail in ballots out 45 days before they're due, and it seems increasingly likely that Florida will do just that. Michigan has backed itself into a corner and when Florida's redo is approved they will have to do something since they have the least legitimate claim. They may have screwed themselves into having to do a caucus, but they might be able to pull off a firehouse primary in time, but it will likely be riddled with problems.

The problem is that both of these solutions will brush against the June deadline, so I don't see Clinton bowing out before they have their say, and there is a weak but legitimate argument for her doing just that (unless somehow she loses Pennsylvania, after which she'll be pressured into quiting and the super-delegate ship jumping becomes rampant. I see that as a long shot, even a marginal victory will keep her in the race.).

However, shortly after June 10th we will see a decision. She'll either have shored up her support or she'll bow out and now have the really difficult job of undoing the damage that she's done. She'll have to throw her support behind someone she's already said McCain is better qualified than. (not as if, at this point, Obama's job would be any easier).

I'm off to bed - well past when I should have been abed, and a busy weekend coming up - I'll try and reply better to this tomorrow. :)

No, she'll do everything she can to get her way.

She's one of those people who believes the rules do not apply to her.

The classic example she gave was cleaning out Vincent Foster's office by kicking the FBI and police out of Foster's office, then going through the office and cleaning it out of all references to anything remotely connected to her, taking the boxes of documents, and telling the FBI to stay the fuck out of the office until she was done.

How's Bigfoot doing?

He said that? Quote him.
It was a question not a statement of fact.

We've shown you the evidence. You've thoroughly reviewed the evidence. Are you actually going to pretend none has been presented?
Your evidence is inconclusive, and certainly not overwhelming. I still believe that Hillary is more electable. Right now, according to the popular vote, it would appear that Obama and Clinton have a 50/50 split.

The evidence certainly suggests it is, however. I love that you keep using the word "prove". I can't "prove" gravity exists, but I sure make sure I set my glass of water on a table.
Well if you can't prove your can at least make more compelling arguments to support your case.

He adds that because you've not demonstrated that it IS founded. That doesn't make it impossible for it to be founded. However, it's only reasonable that we treat as unfounded. And we are.
Much double talk about nothing.

Oh, no. Because we people disagree with you, they're "shouting you down".
It certainly appears that way. Thats okay though....after all, you guys have all the answers. :rolleyes:

The purpose of debate isn't just to bring all sides, but to bring up all evidence. According to you, this is a bad thing. The purpose of debate is very much to damage weak ideas.
Now all we have to do is go through all the weak ideas and discard them. :p

How's Bigfoot doing?

It was discovered that Chief White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum illegally removed documents from Foster’s office. The documents concerned the Whitewater Development Corporation. Furthermore, it was reported that a Secret Service agent named Henry O' Neill watched as Hillary's Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, carry boxes from Foster’s office before it could be designated as a scene of a possible criminal investigation. It was alleged that other items were removed even after the room was officially sealed.

All of that is a matter of public record.

Hillary was there in person. As was Maggie Williams, her current campaign manager. Ring a bell?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/11/2008-02-11_meet_maggie_williams_hillary_clintons_ne.html

It was a question not a statement of fact.

Uh-huh. It's just like the rest of your deceptive argument. It was intending to be suggestive about his argument, no matter how you try to pretend otherwise.

You make irrational calls for proof and fact about things we can only examine evidence and make predictions based on this evidence. ALL OF IT. You set a bar that can't be met by anyone and use it as excuse to ignore the bulk of the evidence which clearly and completely disagrees with your claims/predictions/opinions/blatherings.

Your evidence is inconclusive, and certainly not overwhelming. I still believe that Hillary is more electable. Right now, according to the popular vote, it would appear that Obama and Clinton have a 50/50 split.

According to you. Keep running around the room with you queen. Good luck with that.

According to every poll done, Obama is more electable. The popular vote doesn't determine how electable a person is nor how electable the people voting for them are. For example, I believe they would both win so I have no reason to vote based on how electable they are.


Well if you can't prove your can at least make more compelling arguments to support your case.

More compelling? You're ignoring the evidence. And whenever we demonstrate this is so you whine about how we're trying to shout you down with evidence and how your opinion stands until the election happens. The only person who has found our case to be lacking is you, and you've admitted that only way it could be compelling is if we had a magic mirror. Forgive me if I don't take that call for evidence seriously.

Out of morbid curiosity, pray tell, what would make our case more compelling?



I don't understand.

Fixed.



It certainly appears that way. Thats okay though....after all, you guys have all the answers. :rolleyes:

Good to know that you think these two things are equivalent. And we don't have all the answers, we just consider ALL the evidence. We're crazy like that.



Now all we have to do is go through all the weak ideas and discard them. :p

If only... however some people cling to weak and unsupported ideas no matter how contrary to the evidence they are. You hold up this clinging as a trophy. It's rather sad.

It was discovered that Chief White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum illegally removed documents from Foster’s office. The documents concerned the Whitewater Development Corporation. Furthermore, it was reported that a Secret Service agent named Henry O' Neill watched as Hillary's Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, carry boxes from Foster’s office before it could be designated as a scene of a possible criminal investigation. It was alleged that other items were removed even after the room was officially sealed.

All of that is a matter of public record.

Hillary was there in person. As was Maggie Williams, her current campaign manager. Ring a bell?

That's not the same as what you said. But, hey, don't get caught up in the details just because they're completely different than your claim.

That's not the same as what you said. But, hey, don't get caught up in the details just because they're completely different than your claim.

Hillary was there, and was the one who told the officers to stay out. Per the testimony of O'Neill.

But go ahead - vote for Hillary if you want Dick Cheney in a dress...

Hillary was there, and was the one who told the officers to stay out. Per the testimony of O'Neill.

But go ahead - vote for Hillary if you want Dick Cheney in a dress...

Hmmm... you wouldn't care to provide evidence, son?

The classic example she gave was cleaning out Vincent Foster's office by kicking the FBI and police out of Foster's office, then going through the office and cleaning it out of all references to anything remotely connected to her, taking the boxes of documents, and telling the FBI to stay the fuck out of the office until she was done.

Support this with O'Neill's testimony.

Hmmm... you wouldn't care to provide evidence, son?

Support this with O'Neill's testimony.

Why don't you ask Hillary? She's the one who "found" some of the missing papers from Foster's office in her own room at the White House. She has a staff of henchmen who also believe that they are above the law. Between cleaning out Foster's office, and sending other henchmen to attempt to destroy items at the National Archives, what legacy are they trying to destroy?

Seems to me she thinks she's above the law, rather like Spitzer.

I'll vote for Obama, thank you.

Why don't you ask Hillary? She's the one who "found" some of the missing papers from Foster's office in her own room at the White House. She has a staff of henchmen who also believe that they are above the law. Between cleaning out Foster's office, and sending other henchmen to attempt to destroy items at the National Archives, what legacy are they trying to destroy?

Seems to me she thinks she's above the law, rather like Spitzer.

I'll vote for Obama, thank you.

Like I said, how's Bigfoot doing?

I take it from your response that you actually checked and found that Henry O'Neill testified to no such thing. He never said Hillary was there. He said he saw her aide remove files. His testimony had nothing to do with Clinton.

Is there a solution?

global revolution!

global revolution!

... 'cos the sun coming up changes everything ...

Keith Olberman did a great job here. Sometimes I love this guy, other time, meh. http://baldwinparkdemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/03/keith-olbermanns-special-comment.html

Go Keith! Tell it like it is brother man!

Further evidence of military support for Obama:
(In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't looked for lists of top military officials supporting other candidates, but this does look like an impressive list.

CHICAGO—Citing his judgment and ability to lead, admirals and generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force that together have served under the last nine Commanders-in-Chief today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president.

In offering their endorsement, the generals and admirals recognized Obama’s judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, his respect for the Constitution and rule of law, his leadership on behalf of America’s servicemen and women and his ability to conduct the diplomacy necessary to restore America’s standing in the world.

"Those of us who have served, worn the cloth of our nation, and gone into harm’s way know that to be successful we must have the strongest sense of trust in our Commander in Chief. We must be confident that he or she has listened to the best possible advice, that he or she has garnered the best possible information from all possible sources, that he or she has analyzed and weighed all the possible consequences and outcomes, and that he or she has made the decision to exert military force as a last possible resort,” said Admiral (Ret.) Robert “William” Williamson (USN). “Of this I am certain: Senator Obama will do all of those things and much more to ensure the safety and f reedom of our citizens, our allies, and coalition partners. He has all the great qualities and attributes required to carry out the most difficult duties of the Presidency.

“I spent a career involved in coalition warfare, and I am keenly aware of the importance of working with allies,” said Brigadier General (Ret.) James Smith (USAF). “Senator Obama brings a powerful approach to dealing with national security challenges by truly leveraging multinational relationships. He brings a new face of America to the rest of the world."

“Senator Obama has a profound, even scholarly knowledge of our Constitution and he has the deepest respect for the rule of law. As a career naval officer, I trust his judgment, his temperament, and his ability to analyze complex international situations and relationships and to make military decisions that are in the best long term interests of the United States,” said Admiral (Ret.) Don Guter (USN). “It will take the powerful leadership of Senator Obama to forge the consensus we need to right our ship of state, restore our honorable place in the world, and secure the safety of our nation."

“As a child of the Greatest Generation I learned that the attraction, glory and resilience of America come from the principle of “We the People.” In my four decades in the national security arena I developed an increasing appreciation for the intent and expectations of this principle, particularly in terms of the Common Defense and Domestic Tranquility,” said Brigadier General (Ret.) David McGinnis (ARNG). “In recent years, enticed to believe that these roles belonged to a chosen elite, each of us have paid an increasing price in loss of power, liberties, and national treasure. Today, by every measure, our current strategic situation is not good. It is from that perspective I believe only Senator Obama offers us the opportunity to reclaim our Republic, restore our national dignity and ensure our overall security. I salute his leadership, embrace his candidacy, and commend his courage.”

Obama is the grandson of a soldier who marched in Patton’s Army. Throughout his career, he has exercised the judgment and leadership required of a Commander-in-Chief. In 2002, he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, cautioning that it could lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences” at a time when conventional Washington was lining up for war. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has worked across the aisle to secure the world’s most dangerous weapons and as a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, he has compiled a record of standing up for America’s troops and veterans, leading a bipartisan effort to improve care for injured troops, passing laws to fight homelessness among veterans, and increase screening for Traumatic Brain Injury. Over the course of the last year, Obama has unveiled a comprehensive national security agenda that includes detailed plans to secure America from the threat of terrorism, responsibly end the war in Iraq and renew American diplomacy to restore our standing in the world.

List of the people who made endorsements today:

Brigadier General Larry Gillespie. Gillespie has led a distinguished 33-year career with the U.S. Army. He served as the Assistant Deputy Commanding General, (ARNG) Army Material Command. He is a recognized authority in many of the technical challenges and solutions associated with Homeland Security and National Defense. As a civilian, General Gillespie has held a series of increasingly important positions with the Air Transport Association, Hughes Aircraft Company, Raytheon Systems Company, NCI, Hampton University, and Eagle Force Association.

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret). General Gration is a retired two-star general and was the Director of Strategy, Policy, and Assessments of the United States European Command in Germany. General Gration was raised in Africa and entered the Air Force in 1974 through the Air Force ROTC program at Rutgers University. He served as a White House Fellow, operations group commander and two-time wing commander. The general served as Director of Regional Affairs in the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for International Affairs. General Gration served as the Commander of Task Force West during Operation Iraqi F reedom. His aerial combat experience includes almost a thousand hours of combat time with 274 combat missions over Iraq.

Admiral Don Guter. Admiral Guter served in the U.S. Navy for 32 years, concluding his career as the Navy’s Judge Advocate General from 2000 to 2002. Admiral Guter currently serves as the Dean of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh, PA. He also is executive director of the Navy Marine Coast Guard Residence Foundation.

Brigadier General David “Dave” McGinnis. General McGinnis was the Chief of Staff of the National Guard Association of the U.S. McGinnis served as director of strategic plans and analysis for the Honorable Deborah R. Lee, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. He served two tours in Vietnam before leaving the active Army in 1972 and joining the New York National Guard that same year. In 1990, he became branch chief of the force management division at National Guard Bureau (NGB) in Washington. Subsequent assignments included Deputy Chief from 1991-92 and Director from 1992-1993.

General Merrill “Tony” McPeak. General McPeak is a retired four star general and served as Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force during Operation Desert Storm. McPeak entered the Air Force in 1957 and was appointed Chief of Staff in 1990, holding that office until his retirement in1994. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, McPeak served as a top wartime advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and National Security Council. General McPeak is the recipient of the Silver Star, Distinguished Service Medal and Distinguished Flying Cross. He was a fighter pilot and flew over 300 combat missions in Vietnam.

Admiral John B. Nathman. During his thirty-seven year career with the U.S. Navy, Admiral Nathman held a variety of positions in naval air and sea-based operations, finishing his service as Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy, Admiral Nathman became a naval aviator, ultimately serving as an instructor at the Navy Fighter Weapons School. In 1971, Admiral Nathman earned a Master of Science degree in Aerospace Systems Engineering from the University of West Florida. He attained Flag rank in 1994 and served in a number of command positions, including with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, Naval Air Forces, and U.S. Fleet Forces. Admiral Nathman also served as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations.

Major General Hugh Robinson. A West Point graduate, Robinson was promoted to brigadier general and became the Corps of Engineers’first African American general officer. He served as deputy director of Civil Works, and in 1980 assumed command of the Southwestern Division, a position he held until his retirement in 1983 as a major general. In 1965, he was appointed as military aide to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Robinson was the first African American to serve in that position and held the appointment throughout the remainder of Johnson’s presidency.

Brigadier General James Smith. Smith retired from the U.S. Air Force as a brigadier general and served as Commander, Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Joint Training Analysis and Simulation Center. He was responsible for managing the joint force exercise and training development program and the modeling, simulation and deploying of solutions that demonstrated high probability of operational success. His previous assignments included Commander, 18th Wing; Vice Director for Operations, Headquarters North American Aerospace Defense Command; Commander, 325th Operations Group; and CSAF Chair, National War College.

Admiral Robert “Willie” Williamson (USN-Ret Rear Admiral). Retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Williamson served as military Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition and Director, Office of Program Appraisal. He was the senior military advisor on the Secretary of the Navy staff. Williamson commanded the aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz, during Desert Storm, and his last operational assignment was Commander, Carrier Group Two, (John F. Kennedy Battle Group), Deploying to the Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas in support of allied operations in Bosnia.

Major General Ralph Wooten. Wooten is a former Commanding General of the Army’s Chemical Arsenal. His civilian corporate career includes Management of large material management and control of multi-million Department of Defense programs. He served 31 years in the U.S. Army and retired as a Commanding General. During his military career he crafted strategic vision, formulated operations plans, developed investment strategies, controlled facilities and equipment, executed multi-million dollar budgets, and provided leadership, direction and advocacy to human resources numbered in the thousands, and corporate management to major military installations. He is currently the Executive Vice President of Management Systems, Inc.

Uh-huh. It's just like the rest of your deceptive argument. It was intending to be suggestive about his argument, no matter how you try to pretend otherwise.
No, it was a question regarding his overstated opinion. You will just take it as another opportunity to attack the poster and not the argument.

You make irrational calls for proof and fact about things we can only examine evidence and make predictions based on this evidence.
Someone asking for proof is somehow irrational, even though he cannot support his claim? Again, you take another opportunity to attack the poster and not the argument.

ALL OF IT. You set a bar that can't be met by anyone and use it as excuse to ignore the bulk of the evidence which clearly and completely disagrees with your claims/predictions/opinions/blatherings.
You claim that your evidence trumps mine. Sorry Charlie, but you have not yet proven your case. You haven’t even provided compelling evidence to the contrary.

According to every poll done, Obama is more electable.
That is simply untrue (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm).

Gallup Poll daily tracking. Five-day rolling average. N=approx. 4,400 registers voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.
.
General Election Trial Heats:
.
McCain (R) Obama (D) Other (vol.) Neither (vol.) Unsure
Survey end date % % % % %
.
3/12/08 44 46 1 5 4
3/11/08 44 46 1 5 4
.
McCain (R) Clinton (D) Other (vol.) Neither (vol.) Unsure
Survey end date % % % % %
.
3/12/08 45 47 1 4 3
3/11/08 45 47 1 4 3

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 5-6, 2008. N=1,215 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
.
"Now I'm going to describe some different choices of candidates voters might have in this year's presidential election. As I read each one, please tell me how you would vote if the election were being held TODAY. Suppose you had to choose between [see below], the Democrat, and John McCain, the Republican. Who would you be more likely to vote for?" If other/unsure: "As of today, do you lean more toward [see below], the Democrat, or McCain, the Republican?" Names rotated
.
John
McCain (R) Barack
Obama (D) Other (vol.)/
Unsure
% % %
3/5-6/08 45 46 9
6/20-21/07 41 51 8
5/2-3/07 39 52 9
2/28 - 3/1/07 43 45 12
1/24-25/07 42 48 10
1/17-18/07 44 46 10
12/6-7/06 45 43 12
.
John
McCain (R) Hillary
Clinton (D) Other (vol.)/
Unsure
% % %
3/5-6/08 46 48 6
6/20-21/07 45 50 5
5/2-3/07 44 50 6
2/28 - 3/1/07 46 47 7
1/24-25/07 44 50 6
1/17-18/07 47 48 5
12/6-7/06 43 50 7

And, IF you were going to rely strictly on polls, McCain would not have won the Republican nomination 6 months ago. As a matter of fact, he was running in the middle of the list of contenders.

The popular vote doesn't determine how electable a person is nor how electable the people voting for them are. For example, I believe they would both win so I have no reason to vote based on how electable they are.
Hmmmm. Quite a few posters on this thread seem to be very concerned about the popular vote. I think it is a lot more important than you think it is.

More compelling? You're ignoring the evidence. And whenever we demonstrate this is so you whine about how we're trying to shout you down with evidence and how your opinion stands until the election happens.
Your evidence is not overwhelming or even compelling. I see two rather evenly matched opponents who have strengths in different areas. As far as many opinions here, yours mine and others, we will not know who is right or wrong until there is an election. N’est ce pas?

The only person who has found our case to be lacking is you, and you've admitted that only way it could be compelling is if we had a magic mirror. Forgive me if I don't take that call for evidence seriously.
Like I have said before, and I will say it again, it really doesn’t matter whether I am, as another poster put it, a lone wolf, in this regard, it still doesn’t make you right and me wrong. There will be a day of reckoning I am sure. It hasn’t happened yet.

And we don't have all the answers,
Yes, I will take you out of context here, because that is an accurate statement.

If only... however some people cling to weak and unsupported ideas no matter how contrary to the evidence they are. You hold up this clinging as a trophy. It's rather sad.
What is truly sad is the tone of your rebuttals and the fact that you really haven’t added anything substantive to this debate with this post.

Keith Olberman did a great job here. Sometimes I love this guy, other time, meh. http://baldwinparkdemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/03/keith-olbermanns-special-comment.html

I saw that earlier today. At the end of it I wanted to apologize.

June 3rd, it looks like, might be the redo, at least in Florida. I guess here was a May 6th school district election the primary could have piggy backed on in Michigan but they drug their feet too long. I can't believe that Clinton actually forwarded this nonsense as recently as today- (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/13/764831.aspx)
On NPR this morning, Clinton called the Jan. 15 Michigan primary a "fair" election. When asked by interviewer Steve Inskeep how it was fair when Obama's name was not on the ballot, she replied, "Well, that was his choice, Steve."
Christ on a cracker...

Not that I'm a fan of Obama's "Split 'em evenly" plan, that's like not seating them...they're not upset that they can't get tickets...

Colbert on Big States (http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=163320)

Keith Olberman did a great job here. Sometimes I love this guy, other time, meh. http://baldwinparkdemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/03/keith-olbermanns-special-comment.html

Not bad but I raise you a link. I think you will like this one better. It gets to the point quicker.

http://TheNewRepublican.com/ (http://asongbyagayguy.ytmnd.com/)

Not bad but I raise you a link. I think you will like this one better. It gets to the point quicker.

http://TheNewRepublican.com/ (http://asongbyagayguy.ytmnd.com/)

Is this still considered clever?

Is this still considered clever?

Sure it is. Oh wait is it 2008? ;)

This is from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

"We believe this is an incredibly important state," said Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn. "It is absolutely vital to winning the general election. We believe, fundamentally, that it provides a very significant test of who can really win the general election. We believe this again will show that Hillary is ready to win and Sen. Obama really can't win the general election."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/multimedia/s_557225.html

So in other words, if Clinton takes Pennsylvania (and let me tell you that she will probably do so), it will prove that only Clinton can win the General Election.

What Penn said would make sense if not for this:

Even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, she likely won't net more than 20 delegates, which still would leave Obama with a lead of more than 100 pledged delegates, Schaffner said.

"Bottom line, Pennsylvania can help Clinton close the gap, but she will still have a long way to go even after that primary," he said.

So tell me Penn...what the hell makes you think that Obama cannot win the General Election and didn't you say this about Texas and Ohio? BTW: You only won the Texas Primary but LOST the delegate total there.

I saw that earlier today. At the end of it I wanted to apologize.

June 3rd, it looks like, might be the redo, at least in Florida. I guess here was a May 6th school district election the primary could have piggy backed on in Michigan but they drug their feet too long. I can't believe that Clinton actually forwarded this nonsense as recently as today- (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/13/764831.aspx)

Christ on a cracker...

Not that I'm a fan of Obama's "Split 'em evenly" plan, that's like not seating them...they're not upset that they can't get tickets...

Colbert on Big States (http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=163320)


If that doesn't capture it, I don't know what does. She thinks it's about whether she's being fair to Obama. Fuck the voters. They don't matter. Right?

Because whether Obama chose to remove his name in a state where the rules said the primary wouldn't be considered valid, the voters did not. In fact, she knows that 40% of the voters wanted someone else on the ballot and this was with no one campaigning. Does she care? You tell me.

HOW ABOUT SOME FIRE FOR YOUR SCARECROW?
If you remember well, the scarecrow ended up with the brains and the witch melted? :D

Yeah, I'm sorry. The Elliot Spitzer joke isn't relevant at the current time.
It is interesting to note though that you can relate your fantasies with his? :D

I'm trying to understand what your point is here. Your argument has been that Hillary is more electable than Obama. Can I prove your opinion to be wrong? Clearly not because that would require time travel.
Yup, it would require a trip to the future for sure.

Can I show a very strong case that you are likely wrong? I have.
In your opinion you have, but not in fact.

I'll go back to my last points for you and see if you can refute what the evidence suggests. Don't give me your usual avoidence of the information presented.
If you give me the same "evidence" then you should be prepared for the same response?

So far you've done a piss poor job of trying to refute me rather than my evidence.
Again, clearly your opinion.

(CNN) — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has won the Texas Democratic caucuses and will get more delegates out of the state than his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state's primary, according to CNN estimates.
Yup, I understand that Clinton won the primary and Obama won the caucus.

The next step in the delegate-selection process will occur on March 29, when the county-level delegates chosen at the March 4 caucuses will meet in county conventions held across the state. CNN will closely monitor those events and will adjust its delegate estimate for Obama and Clinton, if necessary, based on those results at that time.
So we need to wait until March 29, to get a final reading on the numbers. Okay.

RE: Debunking the Clinton Campaign’s Dubious “Big State” Spin

In an attempt to minimize the significance of Barack Obama’s success in winning more than twice as many states as Senator Clinton, her campaign’s supporters have attempted to diminish the importance of the states where Senator Obama has prevailed.
I think it is more a case of her emphasizing the importance of the states that she has won.

Senator Obama has scored important victories in each of our states – states that will play a decisive role in deciding whether or not John McCain will be given the chance to enter the White House and extend George Bush’s failed policies for another 4 years.
States that could play a decisive role is a more operative word.

In each of the 30 primaries and caucuses that Obama has now won, including Mississippi yesterday, he’s shown the ability to motivate Democrats to turn out at the polls, win the support of blue collar voters in suburban and rural communities and attract the support of Independents and Republicans. That’s the kind of candidate Democrats need to nominate to beat John McCain in November, and it’s the kind of leader America needs to bring to Washington the kind of change we can believe in.
And this is an attempt to minimize the voters who have turned up at the polls to support Hillary?

The Clinton campaign’s argument ignores relevant facts about how significant a role these states played in determining the outcome of the presidential race in 2004. In fact, Obama has won 7 of 9 of the biggest states that were close in the 2004 presidential election and have already selected delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention.
Of those 7, Kerry won 4 of them in 2004.

Of the 3 that are left, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado have a total of 14 electoral votes. Of the two that Clinton won (New Jersey and Ohio), they have a total of 35 electoral votes. Kerry carried New Jersey (15 electoral votes). Kerry lost the election because he couldn't carry Ohio (20 electoral votes). This still appears as a big plus for Clinton.

What is missing is Florida. I know, I know, that is still up in the air, and there will be a re-vote, but Clinton won that one 50% to 33% over Obama. Kerry did not win Florida in 2004. Florida = 27 more possible electoral votes.

So, writing off Clinton's potential versus that of Obama is somewhat of a folly.

What about Michigan? Will Hillary also win that one and another possible 17 electoral votes.

More than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. It’s also worth noting that polls in four of these five states show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

Obama Winning Vast Majority of Big States that Were Close in 2004
So far, I have seen only one poll, and based on that poll alone, Clinton would be the wiser/safest choice.

And there is more yet to come.

The Clinton campaign’s misleading argument about the importance of her performance in the largest states actually highlights the limits of her appeal and her ability to win the general election.

To turn the Clinton argument around, more than 55% of her popular vote total and nearly half of her pledged delegates have come in just five states. In four of them, polls show that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton. In the fifth, Texas, Clinton admitted that she didn’t expect it to be “in the general election calculation.
Again, if based on the one poll that has already been floated on this thread, then Hillary is the safest, wisest choice at the moment.

BTW, if you have to cling to that one poll, consider this:

Obama would lose New Jersey, wouldn't win Florida and would HAVE to win Virginia to win the election!!

Meanwhile, Hillary would win Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, and have a great shot at Tennessee and West Virginia. She would also have a better shot at Missouri. Not too shaby?

If you remember well, the scarecrow ended up with the brains and the witch melted? :D

Umm, no. The scarecrow was told that he obviously had brains all along, since he'd found clever ways out of situations. But this isn't OZ, it's the mystical land of logical fallacies.

Yup, it would require a trip to the future for sure.


In your opinion you have, but not in fact.


If you give me the same "evidence" then you should be prepared for the same response?
You are asking for proof, which is physically impossible. nothing can ever be proven with 100% accuracy.

Again, clearly your opinion.


Yup, I understand that Clinton won the primary and Obama won the caucus.


So we need to wait until March 29, to get a final reading on the numbers. Okay.


I think it is more a case of her emphasizing the importance of the states that she has won.


States that could play a decisive role is a more operative word.


And this is an attempt to minimize the voters who have turned up at the polls to support Hillary?


Of those 7, Kerry won 4 of them in 2004.

Of the 3 that are left, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado have a total of 14 electoral votes. Of the two that Clinton won (New Jersey and Ohio), they have a total of 35 electoral votes. Kerry carried New Jersey (15 electoral votes). Kerry lost the election because he couldn't carry Ohio (20 electoral votes). This still appears as a big plus for Clinton.

What is missing is Florida. I know, I know, that is still up in the air, and there will be a re-vote, but Clinton won that one 50% to 33% over Obama. Kerry did not win Florida in 2004. Florida = 27 more possible electoral votes.

So, writing off Clinton's potential versus that of Obama is somewhat of a folly.

What about Michigan? Will Hillary also win that one and another possible 17 electoral votes.

Seriously, no predictions can be made about Florida or especially Michigan until Obama and Hillary both campaign there.
So far, I have seen only one poll, and based on that poll alone, Clinton would be the wiser/safest choice.

And there is more yet to come.


Again, if based on the one poll that has already been floated on this thread, then Hillary is the safest, wisest choice at the moment.

BTW, if you have to cling to that one poll, consider this:

Obama would lose New Jersey, wouldn't win Florida and would HAVE to win Virginia to win the election!!

Meanwhile, Hillary would win Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, and have a great shot at Tennessee and West Virginia. She would also have a better shot at Missouri. Not too shaby?

And overall, Obama has more electoral votes at the end. What is it that makes those states Clinton would win and Obama would not more important than the states Obama would win and Clinton would not?

Sure it is. Oh wait is it 2008? ;)

I was going to make fun of the link until I caught your little bit of self depreciating humor.

... I really do in this case. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/14/beckfloridamichigan/index.html

Democrats aren't happy that delegates from Florida and Michigan won't be seated at the national convention because those states broke clear party rules. Well you know what? Too bad. We don't say that enough anymore. Too bad. You agreed to the rules; you broke them. Now you've got to deal with the consequences.

Why is there no recall effort against Charlie Crist or Jennifer Granholm? They are the ones that signed the primary date changes into effect, knowing beforehand what the consequences were. They cheated, now they want a do-over. Too f--king bad. Citizens of Florida and Michigan, you're right to vote was essentially taken away by these two individuals. Why are you letting them stay in office?

And what the hell does this say to the rest of the country about the consequences of cheating if they get a redo? "Yes, teacher. I cheated off my neighbor. But if you'll have to let me retake the test, and you must count the retest result as my actual grade." No, you dumb motherf--ker, you get an F.

nope. glen beck is still a dick.

politics isnt school. if the democrats can find a fair way to redo those primaries--which would then be held in the legal time period--they should do so.

nope. glen beck is still a dick.

politics isnt school. if the democrats can find a fair way to redo those primaries--which would then be held in the legal time period--they should do so.

If it were the Republicans who broke the rules, you wouldn't be here arguing their case. I don't really care what you say in threads like this because you hold a double standard. :rolleyes: How surprising....

If it were the Republicans who broke the rules, you wouldn't be here arguing their case. I don't really care what you say in threads like this because you hold a double standard. :rolleyes: How surprising....

What do you mean you like raping 6 year old girls? You should be shot, you sick fuck!

....see kiddies, pretending someone said something when they didn't is a poor way of demonstrating your supposed intellect.

They need to suck it up and face the consequences. They should not get a re-vote.

If it were the Republicans who broke the rules, you wouldn't be here arguing their case. I don't really care what you say in threads like this because you hold a double standard. :rolleyes: How surprising....

wow its like you have a probe right into my brain that you know that about me.

when you break your own rules its not against the rules to decide how to unbreak them.

What did Florida and Michigan do, exactly? I mean, Florida screwed up royally during the 2000 presidential elections, but they still managed to count for something.

... I really do in this case. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/14/beckfloridamichigan/index.html



Why is there no recall effort against Charlie Crist or Jennifer Granholm? They are the ones that signed the primary date changes into effect, knowing beforehand what the consequences were. They cheated, now they want a do-over. Too f--king bad. Citizens of Florida and Michigan, you're right to vote was essentially taken away by these two individuals. Why are you letting them stay in office?

And what the hell does this say to the rest of the country about the consequences of cheating if they get a redo? "Yes, teacher. I cheated off my neighbor. But if you'll have to let me retake the test, and you must count the retest result as my actual grade." No, you dumb motherf--ker, you get an F.
If you ask me, it's the DNC that screwed up. All they had do to was insist that all delegates, including the super-delegates, would not be seated at the convention. This would have resulted in so much whining from the party faithful, that the States would have had to move the primaries back to acceptable dates.

But you know, what was the motivation for the DNC to complain about the dates? States have to plan -- unlike the DNC apparently -- and have dates and resources set aside for these contests.

nope. glen beck is still a dick.

politics isnt school. if the democrats can find a fair way to redo those primaries--which would then be held in the legal time period--they should do so.

Then I ask: what kind of precedent does this set for 2012 if Michigan and Florida get away with cheating? How many states are going to jump ahead and demand their votes be counted anyway??

If it were the Republicans who broke the rules, you wouldn't be here arguing their case. I don't really care what you say in threads like this because you hold a double standard. :rolleyes: How surprising....

What do you mean you like raping 6 year old girls? You should be shot, you sick fuck!

....see kiddies, pretending someone said something when they didn't is a poor way of demonstrating your supposed intellect.

WTF...that made no sense when I read it...how did that turn into raping 6 year old girls??

:confused::confused:

or were you using that as an analogy?

Then I ask: what kind of precedent does this set for 2012 if Michigan and Florida get away with cheating? How many states are going to jump ahead and demand their votes be counted anyway??

a do-over doesnt let them "cheat"

If you remember well, the scarecrow ended up with the brains and the witch melted? :D

Actually the scarecrow, as all of them found out, had the brain he needed from the start. But it was an analogy apparently lost on you.


It is interesting to note though that you can relate your fantasies with his? :D

God, now you are just being a tool. The joke was your queen being pimped out like a whore. It has nothing to do with a fantasy of mine.
Yup, it would require a trip to the future for sure.


In your opinion you have, but not in fact.

I see, it's only "in fact" if you recognize it? Want to take a straw poll of our fellow posters here and see who they think has made a better case? It seems most have just given up arguing with you because you simply say, "no that's not true" and dismiss evidence given to you.


If you give me the same "evidence" then you should be prepared for the same response?

You can't really be serious with this. The guy who repeated the same argument for 10 pages...? You have not in any way refuted the evidence. You simply say, "that's your opinion." Or "I don't think so." You have not refuted any evidence, you've simply tried to refute me. I've asked you before and I'll ask you again kindly. If you can find a better criteria than 1. States won in primaries and caucuses 2. Close states in 2004 (It doesn't Fing matter whether Kerry or Bush won them, the point is they were close and will likely play a key role in this election. This distinction seems to be lost on your superior mind) Of those states Obama won more delegates and votes in the primaries or caucuses there. This makes him stronger than Clinton in those states. 3. Head to head polling nationwide and by state. I'm not using 1 poll as you would like to claim. I'm using RCP averages from multiple polls across different dates.www.realclearpolitics.com


Again, clearly your opinion.

Of course it's my opinion, that's why I'm pushing it. See above, this is the same shit you've been doing this whole thread. "Well, that's your opinion. I don't agree." Ok then, I presented evidence with the above criteria. If you feel you can do a better analysis then do it. We're here waiting for it and you've yet to produce. Another tactic you truly enjoy is trying to fight one part of the argument and not the argument as a whole. I don't care about your one Fing poll that says something different. Your one poll means dick. What does matter is when you find information that is seen as a trend. You then take that information and cross it with other factors and see if the trend matches up. Obama has won more states that were decided by 6% or less in the last election. These "big" states were close last time and Obama won them this time. Couple that with the head to head matchups in those states putting Obama ahead of McCain and that's some pretty substantial correlation. To summarize 1. Obama won more close states and won some of them by large margins 2. They were close and have the potential to go in the Democrats favor. 3. State polls (multiple) show Obama leading McCain by a margin better than Hillary Clinton is. 3 strikes and you're out man.


Yup, I understand that Clinton won the primary and Obama won the caucus.

You do? So you realize that Obama won more total votes and more delegates than her in this state right?


So we need to wait until March 29, to get a final reading on the numbers. Okay.


I think it is more a case of her emphasizing the importance of the states that she has won.

The states she has won are not going Red so regardless they are a win for either candidate. NJ, NY, CA, even PA, they are not going to go red simply because Hillary is not the candidate. In the end it doesn't matter that she won those states because they are not "in play." The only argument you have is for Ohio and I'll concede she is stronger there. Other than that the evidence does not support your "opinion." I've pointed it out, other have as well, and we've laid down the challenge. You have yet to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of this board.


States that could play a decisive role is a more operative word.

Yeah, could play. You think it's likely that they won't play a role? Is your argument seriously going to the that these states don't matter all that much? This is the only way you could actually be trying to make a counterpoint. These are the states that mattered in 2004 and made the difference. Many of them have made the difference for the past 20 years. You somehow think they just won't matter in 2008?


And this is an attempt to minimize the voters who have turned up at the polls to support Hillary?

First, those weren't my words. Next, stop trying the Hillary victim thing. How the hell can a wealthy WASP woman play such a martyr? Finally, it's not saying her supporters don't matter. It's say that in the grand scheme of a national election he's won (and polls show he's winning) where it matters more. If we didn't have an electoral college than every 1 vote would count for just that. Since we do have an electoral college and states like NY and Cali sure as hell not going red, her wins there matter less. Get it now?


Of those 7, Kerry won 4 of them in 2004.

Yup, by a small margin which is why it matters. The Democrats need to hold these states and pick up the other 3.

Of the 3 that are left, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado have a total of 14 electoral votes. Of the two that Clinton won (New Jersey and Ohio), they have a total of 35 electoral votes. Kerry carried New Jersey (15 electoral votes). Kerry lost the election because he couldn't carry Ohio (20 electoral votes). This still appears as a big plus for Clinton.

If you think NJ is going red for McCain you are just flat out nuts.

What is missing is Florida. I know, I know, that is still up in the air, and there will be a re-vote, but Clinton won that one 50% to 33% over Obama. Kerry did not win Florida in 2004. Florida = 27 more possible electoral votes. Wow, you are going to cling to a victory where neither candidate campaigned in the state? One where the election was held before Super Tuesday when Clinton name recognition was what mattered in late January. This was before they went to debates where it was just Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. This was before 1 on 1 debates between the two of them. You actually think that this election was relevant to the current situation? I'll hold back my laughter until you answer this question. Florida and Michigan don't really count until there's actually a competition there. This may or may not happen before the convention. Until then your argument fails gravely on this account. It's as dumb as after Ohio and TExas hacing ehr say, "I won Florida and Michigan..." It's pure spin and nothing else.

So, writing off Clinton's potential versus that of Obama is somewhat of a folly.

What about Michigan? Will Hillary also win that one and another possible 17 electoral votes.

The only name on the ballot and she "wins?" Your trying to include two states where Barack either wasn't on the ballot, or were too early to even be competitive due to her overwhelming name recognition. This is teh best you can do?


So far, I have seen only one poll, and based on that poll alone, Clinton would be the wiser/safest choice.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html


And there is more yet to come.


Again, if based on the one poll that has already been floated on this thread, then Hillary is the safest, wisest choice at the moment.

Come on, there were a few at least...

BTW, if you have to cling to that one poll, consider this:

Obama would lose New Jersey, wouldn't win Florida and would HAVE to win Virginia to win the election!!

Meanwhile, Hillary would win Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, and have a great shot at Tennessee and West Virginia. She would also have a better shot at Missouri. Not too shaby?

Obama will win NJ and so would Hillary. Obama winning Virginia is a good possibility especially factoring in Northern Va. I'm not clinging to one poll, that's what you are doing trying to hold water. Finally, watch what happens in the enxt few days due to her allowing people to speak for her as surrogates. After the "only because he's black" flack finally dies down she'll still be seen as a slash and burn politician who is willing to get dirty to get into power. The truth be damned, Hillary wants to win and that's all that matters to her.

What do you mean you like raping 6 year old girls? You should be shot, you sick fuck!

....see kiddies, pretending someone said something when they didn't is a poor way of demonstrating your supposed intellect.

:confused: Your supposed intellect makes rather bizarre comparisons. :confused:

or were you using that as an analogy?

I'm using it to demonstrate the absurdity of pretending that a poster said something when he/she did not and using this make believe statement of theirs as grounds to attack them.

If Kontor can attack Ashmoria for holding a "double standard" because she supposedly wouldn't hold the same standard for republicans, even though she never said that and gave no indication that it was true, then I can call him a filthy pedophile who deserves a bullet because he enjoys raping little girls.

Even though he never said that and gave no indication that it was true.

Umm, no. The scarecrow was told that he obviously had brains all along, since he'd found clever ways out of situations. But this isn't OZ, it's the mystical land of logical fallacies.
Someone was heading down the yellow brick road, so I thought that I would assist them on their journey.

You are asking for proof, which is physically impossible. nothing can ever be proven with 100% accuracy.
Well, an honest attempt at the proof would be a good start.

Seriously, no predictions can be made about Florida or especially Michigan until Obama and Hillary both campaign there.
People are making predictions all over the place here. The only thing missing is the crown and the robe. :p

And overall, Obama has more electoral votes at the end.
Obama actually has zero ECV votes. It is the potential that requires scrutiny.

What is it that makes those states Clinton would win and Obama would not more important than the states Obama would win and Clinton would not?
The potential for electoral college votes.

It probably would of been less inflammatory and less likely to get people squealing for modly intervention if you'd just called him on a strawman argument.

It probably would of been less inflammatory and less likely to get people squealing for modly intervention if you'd just called him on a strawman argument.

I prefer to lead by example :p

It probably would of been less inflammatory and less likely to get people squealing for modly intervention if you'd just called him on a strawman argument.

claiming to know what i would do in different circumstances and dissing me for this supposed stance does not qualify as strawman, does it

claiming to know what i would do in different circumstances and dissing me for this supposed stance does not qualify as strawman, does it

No it does not. Technically a "strawman" is a mischaracterization of an opponents argument in such a way as to leave it easier to defeat. He didn't mischaracterize your argument at all. He didn't inaccurately state your position in such a way as to refute it.

He just made up some shit and used that made up shit to make a personal attack.

a do-over doesnt let them "cheat"

You are correct that revoting isn't exactly cheating ... however at $10 million for the revote in Michigan, and $25 million for revoting in Florida, and both states saying they won't contribute to the funds for a revote, that leaves the democratic public to put up the funds (even if they do get Hillary and Barack to foot the bill, who do you think they get the money from?)

What's unfair is that the Republican government in those states moved the date of the vote up, knowing it was against the DNC rules. So now instead of using $$ for the campain the $$ is being spent on this stupid issue. It's not the people of Florida or Michigan that are to blame, but I say if they don't like it then they better find out which members in their state government they should get rid of. Sorry, but I say don't seat their delegates ... it's too late, it's unfair to the candidates, and it does set a president.

read this ... it's an excellent article on the subject: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/roland.martin/index.html

a do-over doesnt let them "cheat"

Of course it does. The original vote was the states' attempt at cheating the election cycle. Now they get to redo the thing with no consequences. Not even their forty lashes with a wet noodle. Crist and Granholm knew the consequences of what their states were doing. They knew they would be disenfranchising a couple million people by signing their names. Now it's "unfair." How is changing the rules in the middle of the game not cheating?

a do-over doesnt let them "cheat"

Especially when said do-over was provided for as part of the original ruling to strip their delegates in the first place.

Especially when said do-over was provided for as part of the original ruling to strip their delegates in the first place.

Source? I can't find that in the agreement put in place over a year and a half ago.

Of course it does. The original vote was the states' attempt at cheating the election cycle. Now they get to redo the thing with no consequences. Not even their forty lashes with a wet noodle. Crist and Granholm knew the consequences of what their states were doing. They knew they would be disenfranchising a couple million people by signing their names. Now it's "unfair." How is changing the rules in the middle of the game not cheating?

because its enfranchising the voters of michigan and florida while insisting in the rules?

I've met Glenn a few times myself. In fact, I've been mentioned on his radio show a few times and have a picture of myself in Fusion magazine. I think he's funny, smart, and right most of the time.

Common sense is a beautiful thing.

Of course it does. The original vote was the states' attempt at cheating the election cycle. Now they get to redo the thing with no consequences.

Redo the thing, at the proper time, and that's really the point, isn't it?


Now it's "unfair." How is changing the rules in the middle of the game not cheating?

Not really changing the rules all that much is it? The rule was "do it in the proper time and your votes will count, do it at the wrong time and they won't". The DNC stuck to their guns and said "sorry, you did it at the wrong time, this won't count". It also sent a message to every other state "do it at the right time, or it won't count".

Allowing them to redo the primary at the appropriate and permitted time will allow the voices of those voters to be heard, without giving into the states that wanted to change their primary. The lesson was learned and the effect was clear. You can not change your primary date to be earlier than the appropriate time. If you do, that primary will not count. Allowing them to redo it, again, at the appropriate time, doesn't send any bad lesson to the other states, it doesn't encourage them to cheat, because they'd have nothing to gain, just as Florida and Michigan gained nothing.

They tried to move their primary and have the votes count. They failed. It sends the message to other states that if they try, they'll fail too, and if they want the voters to count, will have to pay for two primaries.

In a society that prides itself as democracy, who holds its democratic ideals as one of its highest virtues, I can think of no action where losing your say in the democratic process is an acceptable consequence.

because its enfranchising the voters of michigan and florida while insisting in the rules?

How?! If you know the consequence of, say, drunken driving is jail, you don't get to sober up and redo the drive the right way to avoid jail. We can't neglect the original violation in a redo.

How about this: a revote that counts for only half the delegates. There -- there's enfranchisement for the people of Michigan and Florida with a stiff penalty for the violation that started it all.

Redo the thing, at the proper time, and that's really the point, isn't it?




Not really changing the rules all that much is it? The rule was "do it in the proper time and your votes will count, do it at the wrong time and they won't". The DNC stuck to their guns and said "sorry, you did it at the wrong time, this won't count". It also sent a message to every other state "do it at the right time, or it won't count".

Allowing them to redo the primary at the appropriate and permitted time will allow the voices of those voters to be heard, without giving into the states that wanted to change their primary. The lesson was learned and the effect was clear. You can not change your primary date to be earlier than the appropriate time. If you do, that primary will not count. Allowing them to redo it, again, at the appropriate time, doesn't send any bad lesson to the other states, it doesn't encourage them to cheat, because they'd have nothing to gain, just as Florida and Michigan gained nothing.

They tried to move their primary and have the votes count. They failed. It sends the message to other states that if they try, they'll fail too, and if they want the voters to count, will have to pay for two primaries.

I agree completely.

How?! If you know the consequence of, say, drunken driving is jail, you don't get to sober up and redo the drive the right way to avoid jail. We can't neglect the original violation in a redo.

And what's the consequence of holding a primary too early? The votes in that primary don't count.

Do the votes in that primary count? No, no they don't.

I strongly disagree with allowing the votes already taken to count, because then you'd have a point. But here you don't. The consequence of holding a primary early is that the primary didn't count. It didn't.

To further your analogy, the penalty for drunk driving is jail. Nobody is suggesting that jail shouldn't apply. However the next time that driver gets into his car, and does it clean and sober, we shouldn't send him to jail again. He broke the rules, was given effective punishment for that. These states broke the rules, and were given effective punishment for that, their primaries was declared null and void.

To do it again is not to suggest we let the driver take the test again, it's to suggest that the next time he drives, he should do it in the proper way.

I agree completely.

Unfortunately, I can't agree. They sure aren't making it easy to teach my son that rules are there for a reason and that violating those rules must have a consequence. You can set things right, but there must still be a price to pay for breaking the rules in the first place. I don't think "see I told you so, now pay up" is really a "price" at all.

claiming to know what i would do in different circumstances and dissing me for this supposed stance does not qualify as strawman, does it

Don't think so, but too lazy to google the correct fallacy name. There's one for it.

Unfortunately, I can't agree. They sure aren't making it easy to teach my son that rules are there for a reason and that violating those rules must have a consequence. You can set things right, but there must still be a price to pay for breaking the rules in the first place. I don't think "see I told you so, now pay up" is really a "price" at all.

I thought I just agreed with you there. I think Neo Art was making the point you just made.

Unfortunately, I can't agree. They sure aren't making it easy to teach my son that rules are there for a reason and that violating those rules must have a consequence.

Again, what was the threatened consequence of the action? That the early primary would not count.

What was the result of the action? The early primary did not count.

It seems to me that the action had the exact consequence that it was supposed to.

You can set things right, but there must still be a price to pay for breaking the rules in the first place.

There was, the time, energy, effort, and expense of holding a primary that accomplished nothing.

How?! If you know the consequence of, say, drunken driving is jail, you don't get to sober up and redo the drive the right way to avoid jail. We can't neglect the original violation in a redo.

How about this: a revote that counts for only half the delegates. There -- there's enfranchisement for the people of Michigan and Florida with a stiff penalty for the violation that started it all.

this isnt law and it isnt school.

its the democratic party trying to pick the most popular candidate and trying to position itself for the november election.

they have a way to enforce their timeline rules and flatter the people of michigan and florida that they are extremely important to the party.

it would be wrong of them not to try to schedule do-overs.

I thought I just agreed with you there. I think Neo Art was making the point you just made.

No I was not and I suggest you read closer. My point was that the consequence for the actions of Florida and Michigan was exactly what it was said it would be. The primary was voided. It doesn't give any incentive for other states to try to buck the system, because they'll get exactly the same thing, and expensive, and irrelevant primary.

It was asked what message it would send to the other states. The message is clear. If you do it at the wrong time, you'll have to eat the expense, then do it again at the proper time. That's the consequence. That's the penalty. It's a pretty fair one too. What incentive would a state have to move it early now if they know it will be for nothing?

Obama will win NJ and so would Hillary.
That is your opinion.

Obama winning Virginia is a good possibility especially factoring in Northern Va.
Why is it a good possibility?

I'm not clinging to one poll, that's what you are doing trying to hold water.
I am not clinging to one poll. That is what the others were doing. I called it "suspect" from the beginning.

Finally, watch what happens in the enxt few days due to her allowing people to speak for her as surrogates.
Well certainly you can't blame Hillary for another person's comments?

After the "only because he's black" flack finally dies down she'll still be seen as a slash and burn politician who is willing to get dirty to get into power.
Yup, she is willing to play rough to win. It is called politics. Can't blame her for the comments of another.

The truth be damned, Hillary wants to win and that's all that matters to her.
Of course she wants to win, as does Obama.

Just like you want her to lose more than anything else. You are a self admitted card carrying Republican and as such, you come across as a biased, half baked wannabe Democrat. And as such, it does make it more difficult to separate fact from fiction.

I can see your point, but I wish the arguments made in the media for holding revotes were this clear. It's much harder to refute than "wtf about my vote?!" I'd still like to see a better punishment than "don't do that again." As I said in the OP, Crist and Granholm losing their jobs would be effective punishment for me. As far as I'm concerned they are solely responsible for this fiasco.

And what's the consequence of holding a primary too early? The votes in that primary don't count.

Do the votes in that primary count? No, no they don't.

I strongly disagree with allowing the votes already taken to count, because then you'd have a point. But here you don't. The consequence of holding a primary early is that the primary didn't count. It didn't.

To further your analogy, the penalty for drunk driving is jail. Nobody is suggesting that jail shouldn't apply. However the next time that driver gets into his car, and does it clean and sober, we shouldn't send him to jail again. He broke the rules, was given effective punishment for that. These states broke the rules, and were given effective punishment for that, their primaries was declared null and void.

To do it again is not to suggest we let the driver take the test again, it's to suggest that the next time he drives, he should do it in the proper way.

I'm using it to demonstrate the absurdity of pretending that a poster said something when he/she did not and using this make believe statement of theirs as grounds to attack them.

If Kontor can attack Ashmoria for holding a "double standard" because she supposedly wouldn't hold the same standard for republicans, even though she never said that and gave no indication that it was true, then I can call him a filthy pedophile who deserves a bullet because he enjoys raping little girls.

Even though he never said that and gave no indication that it was true.

ok, I got it...

I thought I just agreed with you there. I think Neo Art was making the point you just made.

Probably, I'm confused. :confused:

Unfortunately, I can't agree. They sure aren't making it easy to teach my son that rules are there for a reason and that violating those rules must have a consequence. You can set things right, but there must still be a price to pay for breaking the rules in the first place. I don't think "see I told you so, now pay up" is really a "price" at all.

ya right.

your son is going to end up in prison because the democrats are rescheduling primaries. you sure do have a fragile grasp on morality in your family.

if he is old enough to notice such things you can use it to demonstrate how its possible to salvage a situation where the rules get broken.

I can see your point, but I wish the arguments made in the media for holding revotes were this clear. It's much harder to refute than "wtf about my vote?!" I'd still like to see a better punishment than "don't do that again." As I said in the OP, Crist and Granholm losing their jobs would be effective punishment for me. As far as I'm concerned they are solely responsible for this fiasco.

crist and granholm are not beholden to the democratic party for their jobs.

No I was not and I suggest you read closer. My point was that the consequence for the actions of Florida and Michigan was exactly what it was said it would be. The primary was voided. It doesn't give any incentive for other states to try to buck the system, because they'll get exactly the same thing, and expensive, and irrelevant primary.

It was asked what message it would send to the other states. The message is clear. If you do it at the wrong time, you'll have to eat the expense, then do it again at the proper time. That's the consequence. That's the penalty. It's a pretty fair one too. What incentive would a state have to move it early now if they know it will be for nothing?
My apologies.

Also, I think the fallacy everyone is looking for is the fallacy of circular reasoning. I may be wrong though.

ya right.

your son is going to end up in prison because the democrats are rescheduling primaries. you sure do have a fragile grasp on morality in your family.



Am I trolling? I don't think I said anything to warrant a personal attack. I'm trying to demonstrate my point, and you take it out on my family?! What kind of argument is that?!!

crist and granholm are not beholden to the democratic party for their jobs.
No, but they are to the people who elected them in the first place.

Probably, I'm confused. :confused:

To clarify my position, I believe that Michigan and Florida should not hold primaries as they failed to follow the rules. It is an appropriate consequence.

To clarify my position, I believe that Michigan and Florida should not hold primaries as they failed to follow the rules. It is an appropriate consequence.

Ahh, gotcha. ;) My apologies. I'm sick and typing while drugged up. I forget who said what with three people all saying different things. (My consequence is embarrassment.)

Ahh, gotcha. ;) My apologies. I'm sick and typing while drugged up. I forget who said what with three people all saying different things. (My consequence is embarrassment.)
It happens.

No, but they are to the people who elected them in the first place.

and if the residents of those states think they should lose their jobs for causing the fiasco I have no problems with that either.

But this isn't a black and white issue. We need to analyze two questions. What is the appropriate consequence, and would allowing a new primary encourage rule breaking in the future?

I think the appropriate consequence is what happened, the primary was voided, and the states paid expense and time into a primary that was null. Would it encourage rule breaking? No, becaus ethe answer is clear, don't do it or the same thing will happen. You'll have greater expenses and accomplish nothing.

We must also remember one thing, the "consequence" we are talking about is denying american voters the ability to participate in the democratic process. That, to me, is a pretty damned serious consequence, perhaps one of the most serious consequence a population can suffer in a democratic society. Do we truly want to prevent millions of people from participating in the democratic process because of a blundered political strategy that went bad?

Do we as a democracy truly want to tell these millions of people "too bad, no vote for you"?

lol. I like how the author of this topic turned Glenn Becks words to go against Governor Crist. It's not his fault, it is the fault of the DNC. They are the ones with the idiotic rules to punish to take democracy away if we hold elections early. We don't punish Crist because he's a great governor, already lowered taxes, and is great for Florida....oh, and, because ITS NOT HIS FAULT!

when you break your own rules its not against the rules to decide how to unbreak them.
do you seriously believe this? so what's preventing all other states from moving their primaries to Jan 2nd?

I prefer to lead by example :p
careful, leading by example usually means being the first on the chopping block. :p

Redo the thing, at the proper time, and that's really the point, isn't it? then what's the incentive to following the rules if the punishment can be removed so easily... and who's paying for it?
Not really changing the rules all that much is it? The rule was "do it in the proper time and your votes will count, do it at the wrong time and they won't". The DNC stuck to their guns and said "sorry, you did it at the wrong time, this won't count". It also sent a message to every other state "do it at the right time, or it won't count".except now the message is "Do it early and you'll just have to do it again."

Allowing them to redo the primary at the appropriate and permitted time will allow the voices of those voters to be heard, without giving into the states that wanted to change their primary. The lesson was learned and the effect was clear. You can not change your primary date to be earlier than the appropriate time. If you do, that primary will not count. Allowing them to redo it, again, at the appropriate time, doesn't send any bad lesson to the other states, it doesn't encourage them to cheat, because they'd have nothing to gain, just as Florida and Michigan gained nothing. except now, they get a do over, so how is that 'not counting'?

In a society that prides itself as democracy, who holds its democratic ideals as one of its highest virtues, I can think of no action where losing your say in the democratic process is an acceptable consequence. but they didn't lose their say. they are now working on getting their voice heard.

No I was not and I suggest you read closer. My point was that the consequence for the actions of Florida and Michigan was exactly what it was said it would be. The primary was voided. It doesn't give any incentive for other states to try to buck the system, because they'll get exactly the same thing, and expensive, and irrelevant primary.

It was asked what message it would send to the other states. The message is clear. If you do it at the wrong time, you'll have to eat the expense, then do it again at the proper time. That's the consequence. That's the penalty. It's a pretty fair one too. What incentive would a state have to move it early now if they know it will be for nothing?
actually, the punishment was that the delegates were stripped of their votes except now they will get their votes back with no real punishment.

Basically what happened is that the DNC shot themselves in the foot and instead of living with it, they will show how it's not just the GOP that can change the rules.

Am I trolling? I don't think I said anything to warrant a personal attack. I'm trying to demonstrate my point, and you take it out on my family?! What kind of argument is that?!!

you are the one who brought up the ridiculous notion that the democratic party finding a way for the voters of michigan and florida to participate in the selection of the party nominee was detrimental to your son.

then what's the incentive to following the rules if the punishment can be removed so easily

What's the incentive to violate the rules in the first place once it's made clear that nothing will be gained from it? Why should we be so willing to utlize "punishments" that result in millions of votes not being counted? Why not just...oh I don't know...let it be clear that primary votes will only count if the primary takes place through the proper method and at the proper time and if a state wants to violate that, they're just gonna eat the cost of it.

except now, they get a do over, so how is that 'not counting'?

Did the initial primary count? No? Then I say that's pretty obviously "not counting"

but they didn't lose their say. they are now working on getting their voice heard.

Getting their voice heard, through the proper method and at the proper time. Which is exactly what the DNC wanted. So what's wrong with that?

actually, the punishment was that the delegates were stripped of their votes except now they will get their votes back with no real punishment.

Get their votes back..as a result of a primary conducted through the proper method and at the proper time. Which is exactly what the DNC wanted. So what's wrong with that?

Basically what happened is that the DNC shot themselves in the foot and instead of living with it, they will show how it's not just the GOP that can change the rules.

When "changing the rules" allows the voices of millions of voters to be heard once the primary takes place, say it with me, through the proper methods and at the proper time, I have no problem with changing the rules.

We are a democracy after all.

It probably would of been less inflammatory and less likely to get people squealing for modly intervention if you'd just called him on a strawman argument.

But if he takes Kontor to the hospital, he won't learn anything. [/Brian Griffin]

How?! If you know the consequence of, say, drunken driving is jail, you don't get to sober up and redo the drive the right way to avoid jail. We can't neglect the original violation in a redo.

How about this: a revote that counts for only half the delegates. There -- there's enfranchisement for the people of Michigan and Florida with a stiff penalty for the violation that started it all.

Yes, because the internal rules and regulations of a political party are the same as criminal statues. :rolleyes: I don't even know how to make your analogy work. Perhaps somehow punishing the distiller of the booze and assembly line auto factory workers for the DUI?

No I was not and I suggest you read closer. My point was that the consequence for the actions of Florida and Michigan was exactly what it was said it would be. The primary was voided. It doesn't give any incentive for other states to try to buck the system, because they'll get exactly the same thing, and expensive, and irrelevant primary.

It was asked what message it would send to the other states. The message is clear. If you do it at the wrong time, you'll have to eat the expense, then do it again at the proper time. That's the consequence. That's the penalty. It's a pretty fair one too. What incentive would a state have to move it early now if they know it will be for nothing?

EXACTLY.

If anyone arguing Glenn Beck's point can tell me where the DNC said "we will void the results AND PROHIBIT YOU FROM HAVING ANOTHER VOTE", then I'll agree with Beck. Until then, he's trying to paint the Democrats as lawbreakers when no law was broken AND the threatened consequence of MI and FL's actions WAS CARRIED OUT AS PROMISED.

Am I trolling? I don't think I said anything to warrant a personal attack. I'm trying to demonstrate my point, and you take it out on my family?! What kind of argument is that?!!

Uh...you brought up your son. If you don't want your family involved (and really, no names used, and replying to YOUR use of your family, so come off the theatrics), then don't use them in an analogy. The attack wasn't personal and you know it. The point was that your son is in no way affected by this if you explain what Neo Art has explained time and again in this thread. Your reduction to absurdity is your own fault.

No, but they are to the people who elected them in the first place.

and you really think that signing a bill to change the date of the presidential primaries is an impeachable offense?

do you seriously believe this? so what's preventing all other states from moving their primaries to Jan 2nd?


the part where those primaries didnt count, the candidates didnt spend any money in them, they lost the chance to be early influencers and the rest of the country is pissed at them.

lol. I like how the author of this topic turned Glenn Becks words to go against Governor Crist. It's not his fault, it is the fault of the DNC. They are the ones with the idiotic rules to punish to take democracy away if we hold elections early. We don't punish Crist because he's a great governor, already lowered taxes, and is great for Florida....oh, and, because ITS NOT HIS FAULT!

No, no, no. Democracy is happening when it should have to begin with instead of jumping the gun, as MI and FL did. Nobody is "taking democracy away" -- gotta love that dramatic talk radio language, don'tcha?

then what's the incentive to following the rules if the punishment can be removed so easily... and who's paying for it?
except now the message is "Do it early and you'll just have to do it again."


And if they do it too early again, they'll have to have another election again. The people footing the bill aren't going to sit still for that too long. Those continuing to cost the Elections Division of those states the price of a second (nominally unnecessary) election will be voted out or otherwise unseated or fired on demand from taxpayers or whoever foots the bill for a Party primary/caucus.

Honestly, I can't understand why this is so hard to grasp. It's not like a false start in a track meet, where the first jump of the gun is charged to the field and the next person to jump is DQd. It's more like if a discus thrower decides he's going to throw his Olympic discus two weeks before the Games start and wants that result to count -- even if that throw breaks a record, it didn't happen when it was supposed to happen, so IT DOESN'T COUNT. That doesn't mean that he can never throw the discus again or that he can't throw two weeks later at the Games, does it? No.

the part where those primaries didnt count, the candidates didnt spend any money in them, they lost the chance to be early influencers and the rest of the country is pissed at them.

Bingo.

What's the incentive to violate the rules in the first place once it's made clear that nothing will be gained from it?nothing will be gained? the DNC shot themselves in the foot. they stripped their delegates of votes, how can you call that nothing?
Why should we be so willing to utlize "punishments" that result in millions of votes not being counted? so why were such 'punishments' levied on those two states? could it be a disreguard for the rules? were not those two states told what would happen should they break the rules?
Why not just...oh I don't know...let it be clear that primary votes will only count if the primary takes place through the proper method and at the proper time and if a state wants to violate that, they're just gonna eat the cost of it.which would trickle down to the taxpayers.

I agree that the rules should be followed, and I am for a ONE National day set aside for the Primary. But the DNC made the rules and levied the punishment. now that they are in a bind, they will undo their punishment. bascially, "I changed my mind about your rule breaking because it's now affecting me."

Did the initial primary count? No? Then I say that's pretty obviously "not counting" 1) it's being argued that it should count. 2) the primary not counting isn't the punishment, it's their delegates being stripped of their voting power that is the punishment.

Getting their voice heard, through the proper method and at the proper time. Which is exactly what the DNC wanted. So what's wrong with that?"Timmy, you sit back here away from the playground for cutting in line. no more recess for today."

"on second thought Timmy, you can go and play since now all the other kids had their turn."

Get their votes back..as a result of a primary conducted through the proper method and at the proper time. Which is exactly what the DNC wanted. So what's wrong with that?because they were stripped of their votes for rule breaking.

would you allow a bankrobber to keep the money he stole as long as he went to jail? why not? he paid for his crime, he went to jail for robbing the bank, so why can't he keep the money?

When "changing the rules" allows the voices of millions of voters to be heard once the primary takes place, say it with me, through the proper methods and at the proper time, I have no problem with changing the rules. ah... the crux of it.

"change the rules and allow the rule breakers to go as long as their voices can be heard."

were those two states told what would happen should they break the rules? yes.
did those two states go ahead and break the rules? yes.
why? because they probably knew that nothing would be done, and that their 'rule breaking' will be forgiven.

so let me ask you this. with the remaining delegates voting, why can't they just 'change the rules' and allow the winner to be decided by the majority of the valid delegate votes? much less costly than holding two second primaries. and it enforces the rules that the DNC wanted to uphold.

We are a democratic Republic after all.
Fixed. :p

the part where those primaries didnt count, the candidates didnt spend any money in them, they lost the chance to be early influencers and the rest of the country is pissed at them.
1) by redoing the primaries, their primaries WILL COUNT.
2) the Candidates chose not to spend money on them when the DNC levied the punishment.
3) they were never early influencers. the problem stemmed when they tried to become early influencers.
4) the 'rest of the country' isn't and shouldn't be pissed at them, but at the DNC for putting their party in that posisition. the GOP still counted their votes.

Honestly, I can't understand why this is so hard to grasp. It's not like a false start in a track meet, where the first jump of the gun is charged to the field and the next person to jump is DQd. It's more like if a discus thrower decides he's going to throw his Olympic discus two weeks before the Games start and wants that result to count -- even if that throw breaks a record, it didn't happen when it was supposed to happen, so IT DOESN'T COUNT. That doesn't mean that he can never throw the discus again or that he can't throw two weeks later at the Games, does it? No.
actually it was like a false start. the two states tried to put the jump on everyone and were caught.

so they were told that they are DQ'ed... now after the race, they are being told they can now hold the race and their times would then be put up with the rest.

I say, redo the whole thing, including re-regestering everyone. I for one would like to see how many Dems there are pissed at their party for doing this to them and how many would 'jump ship.' to Independants. :p

Uh...you brought up your son. If you don't want your family involved (and really, no names used, and replying to YOUR use of your family, so come off the theatrics), then don't use them in an analogy. The attack wasn't personal and you know it. The point was that your son is in no way affected by this if you explain what Neo Art has explained time and again in this thread. Your reduction to absurdity is your own fault.

Seriously, did you even read what I wrote? If so, reread it. I didn't bring him up, I brought up my ability to teach him right from wrong being undermined by what he sees. And I *DON'T* know that the attack wasn't personal. How long have I been on this board in this incarnation. Even in my old one (Pledgeria before you ask), I didn't talk to everyone.

Neo Art gave his/her point of view on the subject, which I disagreed with. That doesn't make it an "explanation" any more than does Ashmoria's opinion count as laying the facts. They're saying that the states have been punished enough. I say it doesn't go far enough and I said why. That's not theatrics any more than rolling your eyes at me is. Got it?