NationStates Jolt Archive

We all (hopefully) know that the Democratic National Committee voted a while ago to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. Hillary and her buddies, including adviser Harold Ickes, all were supportive of it. So now that it comes down that she won those two states (in skewed elections) and she is losing the nomination, she and her buddies want the results to count. They talk about it being democratic and voices being heard, but what about those who didn't even bother voting because Obama or whatever wasn't on the ballot. Or the fact that the results wouldn't actually count. They talk about voters being disenfranchised, but what about those that WERE disenfranchised by the rule-breaking?

Anyway, a Florida lawmaker is proposing a new, open (allows independents), primary to be done by mail. What does the Hillary campaign have to say? "[It] dismissed [Florida House Democratic Leader Dan] Gelber's suggestion [for a revote, saying] that Obama -- who did not bother to campaign in Florida after its delegates were revoked -- could stand to win there in a re-vote." So you can say it's democratic to cheat, but the only "democratic solution" isn't fair and shouldn't be done?

It's quite obvious that she just wants the power and won't do a damn thing for this country. It'll be four more years of BS under a Hillary House.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080217/pl_afp/usvotedemocratsflorida)

MIAMI (AFP) - With every vote at stake in the tight Democratic White House race, one lawmaker has proposed a way to ensure all voices are heard -- calling a re-vote in Florida, scene of an infamous re-count that ushered George W. Bush to power.

Democratic candidates avoided campaigning in Florida's nominating contest last month after the national party officials stripped it of the delegates whose support determines the party's nominee. The punishment came after the state flouted party rules by moving forward the date of its primary contest.

With her presidential bid weathering an onslaught from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has called for her wins in Florida and Michigan, which was also stripped of delegates, to be counted in determining the party's nominee.

Now Florida's House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber has suggested on a blog on his website that the state could instead vote again by mail so that millions there could have a say after all.

"As the primary slog continues ... Florida Democrats find themselves wondering whether that all too familiar combination of self-destructiveness and bad luck will once again snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory," he wrote.

"Perhaps we should consider a primary election by mail that includes Independent voters," he added, in the posting on Friday. Only Democrats were allowed to cast ballots in January's primary.

Florida was the scene of chaos in the 2000 presidential election between Republican Bush and Democrat Al Gore. Its disputed result had to be decided by the Supreme Court after controversy over the counting of ballots.

With Clinton running neck-and-neck nationwide against rival Barack Obama, extra delegates could now nudge her towards the magic number of 2,025 needed to clinch the party's nod.

Clinton's camp dismissed Gelber's suggestion, the Miami Herald reported Saturday. It added that Obama -- who did not bother to campaign in Florida after its delegates were revoked -- could stand to win there in a re-vote.

Your strange political system and parties apparently held together with nought but duct tape confuse me.

To be honest, the DNC screwed up...can't think of a suitable adjective...let me rephrase...

To be honest, the DNC fucked this up completely. How on earth could they not have resolved this earlier. Out of seeming spite, they just throw out two major states.

I understand that Florida and Michigan were as stupid to push against the rules but, frankly, I've seen better behaviour in kindergartens.

As to the OP - Senator Obama is asking for Superdelegates to vote according to the popular vote, when that's clearly not their responsibility.

He can ask for changes, try and get things his own way but when Senator Clinton does it she's suddenly some kind of witch?

Finally, I think Senator Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan is both stupid and naive.

I know there's like 50 threads on this subject but whatever, in fact....

*heads of to moderation*

Clinton's camp dismissed Gelber's suggestion, the Miami Herald reported Saturday. It added that Obama -- who did not bother to campaign in Florida after its delegates were revoked -- could stand to win there in a re-vote.
What do you want to bet whoever said that to a reporter is getting screamed at right now?

I was looking for that Miami Herald quote (becuase frankly it was too blunt to be believed...) and I haven't found it, but I found (http://www.miamiherald.com/889/story/421699.html) more about Ickes, and he might be the slimiest dude I've heard about in recent memory...
Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count.

"There's been no change," Ickes said. "I was not acting as an agent of Mrs. Clinton. We had promulgated rules and those rules said the timing provision ... provides for certain sanctions, automatic sanctions as a matter of fact, if a state such as Michigan or Florida violates those timing provisions."

"With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt I had an obligation to enforce them," he said.

Clinton won after all the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in either state because they violated the party rules. Clinton, who flew into Florida on primary eve but did not hold a public rally, tried to argue that Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois had violated the pledge by airing a national ad campaign that also showed on Florida television stations.

Ickes' dual positions on the issue illustrate some of the internal division within the party as Clinton and Obama run neck-in-neck in the Democratic presidential race.

I was looking for that Miami Herald quote (becuase frankly it was too blunt to be believed...) and I haven't found it, but I found (http://www.miamiherald.com/889/story/421699.html) more about Ickes, and he might be the slimiest dude I've heard about in recent memory...

I always knew that somewhere out there was a Democratic Karl Rove. :p

I always knew that somewhere out there was a Democratic Karl Rove. :p

Karl wouldn't have been so obvious.

I always knew that somewhere out there was a Democratic Karl Rove. :p
Wait, I thought Mark Penn was supposed the Rove-like guy...

Karl wouldn't have been so obvious.He's had more practice.

speaking as someone from Michigan...Hillary won becuase hers was the only Democratic name on the ticket.
Obama and Edwards withdrew thier names becuase Michigan pushed its primary date to become "more relevant", however, due to the candidates removal of names, it became quite irrelevant.

Either way, it was WE the voters who got robbed. We couldnt even select the candidate we wanted.
Now, we wait until one of the democratic candidates wins the nomination, to choose the person who will likely defeat McCain.

What kind of democracy is that?

Your strange political system and parties apparently held together with nought but duct tape confuse me.
We wish they were held together by something as strong as duct tape.

Florida has a HUGE population of retired New Yorkers. It is not likely that Obama would take the state.

Regardless - I think the primaries are #@$!-ed up for both parties. With multiple candidates on a ballot you find yourself voting not for who you like best - but for who you like best who is likely to win.

I was thinking about this after I left the polls. It'd be nice if instead of voting for just one you could rank them in order from best to worse. Then, if there were ten, the candidate at the top gets ten points, the next gets nine, then eight, and so on. I think that then it would be 'safer' to vote 'offensively' rather than 'defensively'. It also could tell the parties who''s issues were more or less popular. I'm just afraid that one vote on a ballot with multiple choices is inadequate.

Florida has a HUGE population of retired New Yorkers. It is not likely that Obama would take the state.

Regardless - I think the primaries are #@$!-ed up for both parties. With multiple candidates on a ballot you find yourself voting not for who you like best - but for who you like best who is likely to win.

I was thinking about this after I left the polls. It'd be nice if instead of voting for just one you could rank them in order from best to worse. Then, if there were ten, the candidate at the top gets ten points, the next gets nine, then eight, and so on. I think that then it would be 'safer' to vote 'offensively' rather than 'defensively'. It also could tell the parties who''s issues were more or less popular. I'm just afraid that one vote on a ballot with multiple choices is inadequate.

Worse, with the political system in this country in general, you usually end up voting against someone instead of for someone.

Florida has a HUGE population of retired New Yorkers. It is not likely that Obama would take the state.

Regardless - I think the primaries are #@$!-ed up for both parties. With multiple candidates on a ballot you find yourself voting not for who you like best - but for who you like best who is likely to win.

I was thinking about this after I left the polls. It'd be nice if instead of voting for just one you could rank them in order from best to worse. Then, if there were ten, the candidate at the top gets ten points, the next gets nine, then eight, and so on. I think that then it would be 'safer' to vote 'offensively' rather than 'defensively'. It also could tell the parties who''s issues were more or less popular. I'm just afraid that one vote on a ballot with multiple choices is inadequate.

I generally think that this is a fairly good idea, perhaps not all 8 but at least 2.

Then you could still give your 'this is who I'd like to vote for but since they've a cat's chance in hell of winning, following is the person who has a chance that I guess I have to vote for'

That's a long sentence so better give it an easy to remember acronym, let's call it the TIWILTVFBSTACCIHOWFITPWHACTIGIHTVF vote

I generally think that this is a fairly good idea, perhaps not all 8 but at least 2.

Then you could still give your 'this is who I'd like to vote for but since they've a cat's chance in hell of winning, following is the person who has a chance that I guess I have to vote for'

That's a long sentence so better give it an easy to remember acronym, let's call it the TIWILTVFBSTACCIHOWFITPWHACTIGIHTVF vote

Or use transferable voting (Already used in several places world wide). Rank your candidates in order of preference, and then as each of your candidates are knocked out, your vote is passed to the next one on your list, until there are only two candidates left (Or the "none of the above" option has more than 50%, at which point nominations need to be re-opened). It's an absolute bastard to count properly, but it's the fairest system, and negates the need for negative voting. And you could still call it by the same stupidly long acronym :) (Just change the full version to have plurals instead of singulars!)

To be honest, the DNC screwed up...can't think of a suitable adjective...let me rephrase...

To be honest, the DNC fucked this up completely. How on earth could they not have resolved this earlier. Out of seeming spite, they just throw out two major states.

I understand that Florida and Michigan were as stupid to push against the rules but, frankly, I've seen better behaviour in kindergartens.

The decision probably wasn't the best one. They could have allowed 1/2 delegates like the Republicans did.

I have heard that they've offered to allow both states to re-hold caucuses at the end of the primary season. However, it would seem that party leaders in both states are refusing.


As to the OP - Senator Obama is asking for Superdelegates to vote according to the popular vote, when that's clearly not their responsibility.

He can ask for changes, try and get things his own way but when Senator Clinton does it she's suddenly some kind of witch?

He's not asking for changes. He's saying what he thinks superdelegates should do. It isn't as if he's saying they should be required to do so.

Meanwhile, political analysts seem to agree with him. The prevailing opinion seems to be that a vote in which superdelegates decide the nomination against the will of the people will tear the party apart.


As for the OP, are we really surprised? It's been clear from the start that Clinton's fight to have disqualified delegates vote was nothing more than an attempt to give herself an advantage in the contest.

The "who did not bother to campaign..." aside seems odd to me, though. It isn't that he "didn't bother". DNC rules forbid all of the candidates from campaigning there.

I draw your attention to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1191853).

You almost certainly do not want to list your choices from first to last, especially in a polarized political environment.

The decision probably wasn't the best one. They could have allowed 1/2 delegates like the Republicans did.

I have heard that they've offered to allow both states to re-hold caucuses at the end of the primary season. However, it would seem that party leaders in both states are refusing.

the dnc's rules in this instance make sense - the primary process is fucked up enough without allowing a random mad dash for states to be first in line. in normal primary campaigns, knocking them down to half the delegates wouldn't be enough, as delegate counts don't matter nearly as much as 'momentum' and the general perception of someone as the winner, based off of how they do in the first 2 to 7 states. hence why the rnc's cutting half of florida and michigan's delegates didn't actually do anything to stop them from deciding, for example, whether mr. nine eleven and mittens were in or out.

and as i recall, the offer to have a real contest has been on the table for both since before they held their votes. i seem to remember the dnc even saying it would pay for their caucuses in that case, as a show of good faith on their part.

speaking as someone from Michigan...Hillary won becuase hers was the only Democratic name on the ticket.
Obama and Edwards withdrew thier names becuase Michigan pushed its primary date to become "more relevant", however, due to the candidates removal of names, it became quite irrelevant.

Either way, it was WE the voters who got robbed. We couldnt even select the candidate we wanted.
Now, we wait until one of the democratic candidates wins the nomination, to choose the person who will likely defeat McCain.

What kind of democracy is that?
What you're supposed to do is blame your legislators that moved up the primary and pull them out of office. That way, they'll think "Oh shit we better listen to NC rules..."

Or use transferable voting (Already used in several places world wide). Rank your candidates in order of preference, and then as each of your candidates are knocked out, your vote is passed to the next one on your list, until there are only two candidates left (Or the "none of the above" option has more than 50%, at which point nominations need to be re-opened). It's an absolute bastard to count properly, but it's the fairest system, and negates the need for negative voting. And you could still call it by the same stupidly long acronym :) (Just change the full version to have plurals instead of singulars!)

I like this, but with 100 million people, the only way to do it is with electronic voting...which can be glitched or hacked, so...

Florida has a HUGE population of retired New Yorkers. It is not likely that Obama would take the state.

We saw how that went for Giuliani...

We saw how that went for Giuliani...

Whom, incidentally, most New Yorkers hate. :p

Your strange political system and parties apparently held together with nought but duct tape confuse me.

The duct tape is losing its stickum.

What kind of democracy is that?
now you know how Hawaii feels.

other states get the candidates to speak to the masses... we get their daughters and sisters. :p

now you know how Hawaii feels.

other states get the candidates to speak to the masses... we get their daughters and sisters. :p

to be fair, obama did apologize for not getting out there in that article in the advertiser.

to be fair, obama did apologize for not getting out there in that article in the advertiser.

yep, to be fair, he did.

You'd think that campaigns would be finding excuses to campaign in Hawaii, it's freakin' Hawaii...I mean, c'mon, tropical paradise or Wisconsin in winter...hmm, tough choice...

Yeah, it does look like the Hillary camp blew it with FL and MI, but that was their call to make.

The funny thing is that some people actually believe that the national parties are under some obligation to be democratic. There's no such thing - no one has any right to vote in primaries, unless parties decide to give you that right. It's nice of them to let us have some say, though. :p

I like this, but with 100 million people, the only way to do it is with electronic voting...which can be glitched or hacked, so...

AFAIK, your most populous state is CA, with 36 mill, so even if everyone turned out, only a third of your total! (In your presidential system, this system is a little pointless as AFAICS you are a two-party state...)

And the simple way of avoiding electronic voting hacks/glitches is to also keep a paper record, so should the vote be cast into doubt, you *can* have a full recount.

You'd think that campaigns would be finding excuses to campaign in Hawaii, it's freakin' Hawaii...I mean, c'mon, tropical paradise or Wisconsin in winter...hmm, tough choice...

but wisconsin had lovely weather this weekend. i particularly liked the half inch of rain frozen into a solid sheet of ice on the roads.

but wisconsin had lovely weather this weekend. i particularly liked the half inch of rain frozen into a solid sheet of ice on the roads.
I don't suppose you want to hear that here on the coast I've been in a t-shirt and shorts for the last week or so with the fan going...

I don't suppose you want to hear that here on the coast I've been in a t-shirt and shorts for the last week or so with the fan going...
"...every day, hot and sunny, today, hot and sunny, tomorrow, hot and sunny, every single day, hot and sunny. And they love it. "Isn't great, every day, hot and sunny?" What are you, a fucking lizard? Only reptiles feel that way about this kind of weather.

I'm a mammal, I can afford coats, scarves, cappuccino and rosy cheeked women."

:p

"...every day, hot and sunny, today, hot and sunny, tomorrow, hot and sunny, every single day, hot and sunny. And they love it. "Isn't great, every day, hot and sunny?" What are you, a fucking lizard? Only reptiles feel that way about this kind of weather.

I'm a mammal, I can afford coats, scarves, cappuccino and rosy cheeked women."

:p

Hehe...well, 'hot and sunny' is really SoCal, I'm in NorCal on the coast, where it doesn't get much above 85F or below 50F.

But yeah, I only have one jacket and it's not that thick and haven't owned thermal underwear since I was a little kid.

Hehe...well, 'hot and sunny' is really SoCal, I'm in NorCal on the coast, where it doesn't get much above 85F or below 50F.
*does the maths*

Doesn't get much above 29°C/85°F or below 10°C/50°F? Boiling! Top temperature this week in Glasgow is 10°C/50°F, gets down to about 4°C/39°F on a cool day.

Though it's about 0°C/32°F the now, and it can drop to about -3°C/27°F on a bad night.

*does the maths*

Doesn't get much above 29°C/85°F or below 10°C/50°F? Boiling! Top temperature this week in Glasgow is 10°C/50°F, gets down to about 4°C/39°F on a cool day.

Though it's about 0°C/32°F the now, and it can drop to about -3°C/27°F on a bad night.

See now, who put houses there?

See now, who put houses there?
Hard bastards. :p

I prefer it this way, funnily enough. Too much time in a hot place, and I yearn for some rain and some cold.

I quite like it (sometimes) when it's dreich (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dreich+(Old+Scots+origin)).

*Sigh*

Couldn't you guys have a proper vote with an actual majority voting in Presidents and parties, instead of the mostly-arbritrary craziness of Electoral College?

I know you guys wanted to be different to Europe and all, but it smacks of the Rotten Boroughs.

Though it's about 0°C/32°F the now, and it can drop to about -3°C/27°F on a bad night.
It's -8 degrees (err 17F-ish, or something) with freezing fog here in York you pansy :p

And the warmest it'll get tomorrow is 2 (err 36F-ish, or something) degrees. You guys have it lucky compared to us!

*Sigh*

Couldn't you guys have a proper vote with an actual majority voting in Presidents and parties, instead of the mostly-arbritrary craziness of Electoral College?

I know you guys wanted to be different to Europe and all, but it smacks of the Rotten Boroughs.

The electoral college isn't part of the equation here - gotta wait 'til the general election to gripe about that. ;)

As for the primary voting, it's not the system that's broken, but the Democrats who got sick of running loser fringe candidates in the '80s and created these extra layers of complication to ensure that the people didn't have too much say in the nominating process. That's their right, though, since political parties aren't part of the government in any technical way, and can do what they like.

*Sigh*

Couldn't you guys have a proper vote with an actual majority voting in Presidents and parties, instead of the mostly-arbritrary craziness of Electoral College?

I know you guys wanted to be different to Europe and all, but it smacks of the Rotten Boroughs.

Well, the parties have their own rules, it's not really part of the 'official' system, this isn't even the electoral college, but it resembles it. This is really almost more akin to picking a lodge leader. Each organization gets to pick its own way of going about it. If they decided tomorrow to have Simon Cowell host a tv show where the candidate is selected by T-Mobile text messenging then they could.

See now, who put houses there?

... the same type of people who build their houses at the base of a live volcano. :D

The electoral college isn't part of the equation here - gotta wait 'til the general election to gripe about that. ;)

As for the primary voting, it's not the system that's broken, but the Democrats who got sick of running loser fringe candidates in the '80s and created these extra layers of complication to ensure that the people didn't have too much say in the nominating process. That's their right, though, since political parties aren't part of the government in any technical way, and can do what they like.
Isn't part of the reason that they might pick Hillary due to her support in the "big" states, though, as opposed to Obama who'll fare better in the lame-arse, middle of nowhere ones that still count quite a lot towards who wins the election?

@ Cannot Think of a Name -

Your point was mainly the same, so take the above as a question-y answer-y thing, too, please.

Isn't part of the reason that they might pick Hillary due to her support in the "big" states, though, as opposed to Obama who'll fare better in the lame-arse, middle of nowhere ones that still count quite a lot towards who wins the election?

@ Cannot Think of a Name -

Your point was mainly the same, so take the above as a question-y answer-y thing, too, please.
Well, there are some big states that they take for granted, like New York and California. That'll bite them in the ass sooner or later. They had to fight to keep California from switching to a proportional system of distributing our electoral college delegates. While I agree that it would give a huge boost to the Republicans and I've had about enough of them, the bottom line is that it is more representational and that matters more to me than 'winning'...(well, I never 'win' anyway, I vote third party more often than not). Right now they're arguing that she will do better in big states that aren't 'gimmes', like Florida. Right now Obama and Clinton trail by the same gap in Florida polls, but the election is a long way away (Obama has more undecideds in the match up).

It's the all or nothing thing that makes the electoral college thing really frustrating. The 'purple' map gets shown a lot on this forum, when you look by county the 'red/blue' divide is a lot less certain.

I didn't actually answer your question, did I?

Isn't part of the reason that they might pick Hillary due to her support in the "big" states, though, as opposed to Obama who'll fare better in the lame-arse, middle of nowhere ones that still count quite a lot towards who wins the election?

Some people have spun it that way, and it's true that many of Obama's wins were in states where there won't be much of a contest, but so were many of Hillary's, and he still outperforms her on a generic nationwide ballot. She has the edge in FL, and they're about tied in MO, which are important. But this far out, it's unpredictable. Of course, the superdelegates may also be bound by loyalty, previous promises and the usual quid pro quo. That's probably more important at this point.

If this is any preview of what would happen after the Democrats actually win in November, we're in for some great government.

Seriously, if the Democratic party can't figure out how to elect delegates and nominate candidates, maybe they should just sit out a couple elections and figure out how. I thought they had done that after McGovern got walloped in '72, but apparently not.

And doesn't this remind one of November 2000? I would love to see the Democrats nominate someone that lost the popular vote after the last eight years of crying about the very same thing.

Some people have spun it that way, and it's true that many of Obama's wins were in states where there won't be much of a contest, but so were many of Hillary's, and he still outperforms her on a generic nationwide ballot. She has the edge in FL, and they're about tied in MO, which are important. But this far out, it's unpredictable. Of course, the superdelegates may also be bound by loyalty, previous promises and the usual quid pro quo. That's probably more important at this point.

After 1984 I don't know that they're likely to make that mistake again. Already you see the difference in how many of them refuse to state their preference. It really is only a fraction of them that have committed.

After 1984 I don't know that they're likely to make that mistake again. Already you see the difference in how many of them refuse to state their preference. It really is only a fraction of them that have committed.

Well, none but a few of them wants media scrutiny, that's for certain. Whether they've really decided to vote the voter's choice or are simply waiting to see which way the wind's going to blow is hard to tell.


And doesn't this remind one of November 2000? I would love to see the Democrats nominate someone that lost the popular vote after the last eight years of crying about the very same thing.

It's the same debate: you've got the "count every vote" camp and the "you can't change the rules after the game is over" camp. The outcome should be the same. :p

It's the same debate: you've got the "count every vote" camp and the "you can't change the rules after the game is over" camp. The outcome should be the same. :p
Whoever has the sleaziest connections and most expensive lawyers wins?

Whoever has the sleaziest connections and most expensive lawyers wins?

^ That ^

If this is any preview of what would happen after the Democrats actually win in November, we're in for some great government.

Seriously, if the Democratic party can't figure out how to elect delegates and nominate candidates, maybe they should just sit out a couple elections and figure out how. I thought they had done that after McGovern got walloped in '72, but apparently not.

And doesn't this remind one of November 2000? I would love to see the Democrats nominate someone that lost the popular vote after the last eight years of crying about the very same thing.

All this wouldn't be an issue if we just held all 50 states primaries on the same day....



Lets not make references to Nov. 2000 now, the irony makes me want to hide under my bed.

It's -8 degrees (err 17F-ish, or something) with freezing fog here in York you pansy :p

And the warmest it'll get tomorrow is 2 (err 36F-ish, or something) degrees. You guys have it lucky compared to us!

See now, who put houses there?

You're both pansies. Generally Bangor, ME is -3 to 0C (27 to 32F) for highs this time of year with lows -13 to -10C (9 to 14F). True, today it was 7C (45F), but that's unusual. The other day it got down to -20C (-4F).

The thing is why should Obama care about losing blue states. If he's winning all these swing states and more Democrats vote than Republicans (eg. South Carolina), then he gets the blue states automatically AND some red/swing states.

You're both pansies. Generally Bangor, ME is -3 to 0C (27 to 32F) for highs this time of year with lows -13 to -10C (9 to 14F). True, today it was 7C (45F), but that's unusual. The other day it got down to -20C (-4F).

Lulz wut? That's warm compared to here. About 15F is the norm, and single digits back home. Of course, that really doesn't compare to the Dakotas...

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll suggests the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination between Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois is a statistical dead heat in Texas, which holds primaries March 4.

Looks like Texas is a toss up between the two now according to a CNN/Opinion research Corp poll.

In the survey, out Monday, 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters support Clinton as their choice for the party's nominee, with 48 percent backing Obama.

But taking into account the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 4½ percentage points for Democratic respondents, the race is a virtual tie.

Two recent polls by other organizations also show the race statistically even. Map: National and state polling

Texas is going to be very interesting to watch come March 4.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/index.html

Looks like Texas is a toss up between the two now according to a CNN/Opinion research Corp poll.



Texas is going to be very interesting to watch come March 4.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/index.html

Hillary can't gain, especially at this point. The longer this goes on, the better for Obama. Although, if he wins Texas, Ohio, or both...and then Pennsylvania, she may as well concede.

Looks like Texas is a toss up between the two now according to a CNN/Opinion research Corp poll.



Texas is going to be very interesting to watch come March 4.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/index.html

That shouldn't be*. I'd be interested to see a few more polls on the subject. I can do the google search on my own.




*As in I wouldn't have thought that would be the case, not I don't want it to be true.

That shouldn't be*. I'd be interested to see a few more polls on the subject. I can do the google search on my own.
*As in I wouldn't have thought that would be the case, not I don't want it to be true.

too early you think?

if he can pull even now, he'll take the lead by march 4th

too early you think?

if he can pull even now, he'll take the lead by march 4th

I would think so, since I don't think he's really working that state yet.

Also, I feel obliged to once again say, the kids are alright (this time from the article Corny linked)
Likely Democratic primary voters view Clinton and Obama on roughly equal terms. Seventy-nine percent say they would be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee; an equal number feel the same way about Obama. Seventy-nine percent say it's likely Clinton can win the nomination; 82 percent say the same about Obama.

(to counter a certain posters constant assertion that opposing Clinton is destroying the party)

I would think so, since I don't think he's really working that state yet.

Also, I feel obliged to once again say, the kids are alright (this time from the article Corny linked)


(to counter a certain posters constant assertion that opposing Clinton is destroying the party)

this is why the democratic primaries are getting record numbers of votes. its rare to have 2 really good candidates to choose from.

If she wins because they give her those delegates then i will not be voting. Or better yet I will vote for John McCain who at least won his parties primaries FAIRLY. Figures the cold-hearted bitch would claim its democratic to count the results but not democratic to give Barack the chance to campaign in a state they were not supposed to campaign in and were not even supposed to be on the ballot in.

Florida has a HUGE population of retired New Yorkers. It is not likely that Obama would take the state.

Regardless - I think the primaries are #@$!-ed up for both parties. With multiple candidates on a ballot you find yourself voting not for who you like best - but for who you like best who is likely to win.

I was thinking about this after I left the polls. It'd be nice if instead of voting for just one you could rank them in order from best to worse. Then, if there were ten, the candidate at the top gets ten points, the next gets nine, then eight, and so on. I think that then it would be 'safer' to vote 'offensively' rather than 'defensively'. It also could tell the parties who''s issues were more or less popular. I'm just afraid that one vote on a ballot with multiple choices is inadequate.

I agree with you that the system needs to be changed. Currently it is not functioning well as a national party representing the majority of their constituents. If this election were held in April when the "snowbirds" leave, it would be an entirely different contest. The ruling might have sucked, but it's what they agreed upon. In life it comes down to whether or not you can be trusted to keep your word. You make your decision and live with the consequences. To go back on your word just shows to the core of your character. This is the main reason I dislike Clinton. She's only interested in her opportunistic streak.

Anybody seen this story yet?
Clinton targets pledged delegates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html)

Anybody seen this story yet?
Clinton targets pledged delegates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html)

And people wonder why Obama has an 8 state victory streak.

Its statements like these in the article that bolsters why I am an Obama supporter in the Democratic Primary. :headbang:

But one neutral Democratic operative said to me: “If you are Hillary Clinton, you know you can’t get the nomination just with superdelegates without splitting the party. You have to go after the pledged delegates.”

Followed by this by Ms. Pelosi:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned against it. “I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.”

Far be it from me to agree with the Speaker but in this case, I have zero choice but to agree with her. She's right.

But this quote really is telling:

Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000 and is a member of the DNC, said recently: “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit [the DNC]. I feel very strongly about this.”

It takes balls to say something like this.

I'd like to think that what they're really after is the twenty some odd pledged delegates that Edwards still has. I'd hate to see someone be willing to pull down the ceiling just to get the nomination, what good is being nominated if you've destroyed the the faith of the constituency to get it?

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday.

Seems to me they are going after Obama Pledged delegates.

Anybody seen this story yet?
Clinton targets pledged delegates (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html)

I had heard passing mention of it in other stories from that prick Ickes. (it might be strong to call a dude I hadn't heard of until two weeks ago a prick, but every word out of his mouth that I've heard in those two weeks has screamed "I'm an enormous prick!")

I'd like to think that what they're really after is the twenty some odd pledged delegates that Edwards still has. I'd hate to see someone be willing to pull down the ceiling just to get the nomination, what good is being nominated if you've destroyed the the faith of the constituency to get it?

Seems to me they are going after Obama Pledged delegates.

I know, but when this is said it's always not a direct quote and it's "someone in the Clinton campaign." I'm not saying it's not true, or even not likely, I'm just saying that there are probably a lot of ideas being tossed about and some of them are really really really stupid and when it comes time that will be realized. Yes, I'm being a starry eyed optimist, but I have to be able to sleep. I love the, "Well, I totally bet Obama will do it, too, so there!" thing. Ah, projecting your short comings on others to justify your own dickery. Frightfully common.

If this is any preview of what would happen after the Democrats actually win in November, we're in for some great government.

Seriously, if the Democratic party can't figure out how to elect delegates and nominate candidates, maybe they should just sit out a couple elections and figure out how. I thought they had done that after McGovern got walloped in '72, but apparently not.

And doesn't this remind one of November 2000? I would love to see the Democrats nominate someone that lost the popular vote after the last eight years of crying about the very same thing.
Although I rarely, as in never, agree with anything you post, I find myself in total agreement with you here. As I stated before (I am starting to believe that American Democrats are self destructive and masochistic.), "I am starting to believe that American Democrats are self destructive and masochistic."

Sadness indeed!!

The thing is why should Obama care about losing blue states. If he's winning all these swing states and more Democrats vote than Republicans (eg. South Carolina), then he gets the blue states automatically AND some red/swing states.
The nominee doesn't automatically get the blue states and some red states. Winning votes/States in primaries/caucuses does not equate to winning those States in a general election.

The nominee doesn't automatically get the blue states and some red states. Winning votes/States in primaries/caucuses does not equate to winning those States in a general election.

What do you know. CH actually said something truthful.

*snip*

It's quite obvious that she just wants the power and won't do a damn thing for this country. It'll be four more years of BS under a Hillary House.

Well, at least he admits that the last four years were BS....

My assertion is based on the quote below, not on normal campaign procedures.


Mis-information dis-information, I'll screw the party, poor me, if I don't get my way.

Well if the super delegates override the will of the people...

(to counter a certain posters constant assertion that opposing Clinton is destroying the party)
My assertion is based on the quote below, not on normal campaign procedures.

If she wins because they give her those delegates then i will not be voting. Or better yet I will vote for John McCain who at least won his parties primaries FAIRLY. Figures the cold-hearted bitch would claim its democratic to count the results but not democratic to give Barack the chance to campaign in a state they were not supposed to campaign in and were not even supposed to be on the ballot in.
Mis-information dis-information, I'll screw the party, poor me, if I don't get my way.

My assertion is based on the quote below, not on normal campaign procedures.


Mis-information dis-information, I'll screw the party, poor me, if I don't get my way.

So let me get this straight, people being turned off by back room deals overriding the popular vote of quite possibly the most active democratic constituency ever are going to be responsible for the destruction of the party and not the campaign conspiring to do so? Really? You're supposition is that Obama supporters should simply roll over and take it?

It takes balls to say something like this.
Donna Brazile's position doesn't make any sense. The rules of the party are such that the superdelegates are supposed to decide close races. If she'll leave because they actually do, she should leave now simply because they can.

She's basing her opinion of the party on an outcome over which the party has no control. But they did have control over the rules that got therem there, so Brazile should have left the party when those rules were established. Otherwise her action doesn't make any sense.

I draw your attention to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1191853).

You almost certainly do not want to list your choices from first to last, especially in a polarized political environment.

However, if they do not carry equal weight, then the system can, possibly, become more fair.

Granted, in the example given, A would lose if they get 3 points, 2 points and 1 point per vote in order of preference, but that *is* a matter of social philosophy. That means that, given the correct social conditions, people would accept B's victory, because he had more points at the end.

As for the initial problem, it would still exist with or without preferiential voting systems.

The nominee doesn't automatically get the blue states and some red states. Winning votes/States in primaries/caucuses does not equate to winning those States in a general election.

It's safe to assume that the Democratic nominee will get a certain number of states. Same for the Republican nominee. Then, there are the battleground states that Obama is winning. If he wins those with more turnout than the Republicans (which at this point is skewed because of McCain's effective nomination), then he is fairly likely to carry the state. Virginia and Missouri are two states that could really swing either way. Obama won both and more Democrats voted than Republicans. In Missouri, there wan an effective 3-way tie for the Republicans, so don't expect them to sign on with McCain for certain. So, he is likely to carry those states.

Well, at least he admits that the last four years were BS....
If you don't think the Bush administration is BS, among other things, you need to reexamine your life.

WISCONSIN CALLED FOR OBAMA!!!

That is now 9 straight wins

I heard a rumor that Kelvin Sampson is being hired by the Clinton Campaign to help get Florida and Michigan delegates seated.

http://www.thermocaster.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/sampson4.jpg

IU SUCKS!

WISCONSIN CALLED FOR OBAMA!!!

That is now 9 straight wins

Hawaii is likely his as well. Two weeks later, we'll see Ohio and Texas in his column--at least 55-45.

It's safe to assume that the Democratic nominee will get a certain number of states. Same for the Republican nominee. Then, there are the battleground states that Obama is winning.
Obama is winning the traditionally Red States, which I believe will stay Red in the general election.

If he wins those with more turnout than the Republicans (which at this point is skewed because of McCain's effective nomination), then he is fairly likely to carry the state.
Irrelevant to say the least.

Virginia and Missouri are two states that could really swing either way. Obama won both and more Democrats voted than Republicans.
Virginia will stay Red. Missouri is a possible swing but in the last election, a weaker Bush still beat Kerry by 7.2%. I believe that Clinton would have a better shot at winning the State.

In Missouri, there wan an effective 3-way tie for the Republicans, so don't expect them to sign on with McCain for certain. So, he is likely to carry those states.
You cannot predict how those States will go by the Primary votes.

Obama is winning the traditionally Red States, which I believe will stay Red in the general election.

Traditionally red as defined as "states that haven't even been red for the last four elections". Time to pull that little puppy back out.


Irrelevant to say the least.


Virginia will stay Red. Missouri is a possible swing but in the last election, a weaker Bush still beat Kerry by 7.2%. I believe that Clinton would have a better shot at winning the State.

Well, if you declare then how could anyone argue. It's not like there are things like EVIDENCE.


You cannot predict how those States will go by the Primary votes.

And yet you constantly do so. Amusing, that is. Clearly the candidate who can't even win the primaries is more likely to win the election. I mean, why wouldn't a Democratic candidate that is less liked by Democrats and independents win the general election?

Obama is winning the traditionally Red States, which I believe will stay Red in the general election.


Oh not this bullshit again. Obama is winning more swing states than Clinton. Obama is also has won 23 states. 23. With that wide a swarth he's bound to have won quite a few red states. This is an empty statement and it gets emptier as time goes by and yet you keep pounding it like it means something.

Okay, here we go. My initial premise:


Okay, let's look at your list, even though it did not directly address my premise. I was not referring to all the "swing States" but it is an interesting thought. I will add my comments in Red or in Blue. Keep in mind that if Kerry had won either Ohio or Florida, he would have beaten George Bush.




Who the states went for the last 4 elections.

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

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

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

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

Now, my 2nd premise was:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The black is a quote of me. The red is CanuckHaven's arguments against my extensive research.

Keep in mind, folks, this is the entirety of his argument. No explanation of why states proven to swing won't. No retort to the FACT that Obama is winning MORE of the states that have traditionally been swing states.

Now of course Clinton has gotten no states since then. Obama has added:
Wisconsin(10) - DDDD
Hawaii(4) - DDDD
Virgina(13) - RRRR
D.C.(3) - DDDD
Maryland(10) - DDDD

So no traditional swing states, but it should be pointed out that Wisconsin was about as close as they come in 2004.

So, basically, "traditional" swing states have gone WAY more for Obama. But, hey, CH replied with a big NUH-UH, and who can argue with that? I'm serious. Who can argue with something so entirely devoid of a point?

In other words, Obama carried 64 electoral votes worth of swing states. Hillary just 41. His argument is patently false. He's hoping anyone looking on is too stupid to understand the evidence.

I got ya on that, I'm just sayin' that 'a few months ago' isn't 'out of date' especially since it was on the campaign trail.

We've been linking RCP pretty vigorously in this thread. Also the ugly looking USAElectionpolls (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html) website with its out of date Texas poll with Clinton leading (but Obama closing, as he's prone to doing). That website also has Obama leading Clinton by 11% in Wisconsin (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wisconsin.html).

Isn't everyone taking poor Hawaii for granted? I can't seem to find a poll on Hawaii with my simple Google searches.

Expect the endorsement game to get heated as we head on.

Now, in the Doing CanuckHeaven's Job For Him Again catagory, there is finally something to mildly validate one of his tangential points. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html) Gonna feel silly if he gets this in while I'm typing it, but I'm going to go with pattern and assume he hasn't.

EDIT the V: Okay, I screwed up this a ton, so I'm revising the whole deal. If someone quotes me while I'm at it you can see how badly I fucked up, if not take my word for it, it was mess. I mean, this is my fifth fucking edit...

Real Clear Politics has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain. The states include Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Missouri.
Real Clear Politics has tracked general election races for Obama and Clinton against McCain. The states include Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Missouri.
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 49, Clinton 43, Und 8 McCain +6
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 53, Obama 37, Und 10 McCain +16
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 44, Clinton 43, Und 8 McCain +1
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 40, Und 10 McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 42, Und 14 McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 49, Und 12 Obama +10
Missouri: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 43, Clinton 42, Und 15 McCain +1
Missouri: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 40 McCain +2
Colorado: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 46, Undecided 15 Obama +7
Colorado: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 49, Clinton 35, Undecided 16 McCain +14
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 36, Obama 49 Obama +13
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 43, Und 16 Clinton +2
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 41, Obama 51, Und 8 Obama +10
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 52, Clinton 41, Und 7 McCain +11
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 49, Clinton 42, Und 9 McCain +7
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 42, Obama 52, Und 6 Obama +10
Minnesota: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 42, Und 11 McCain +5
Minnesota: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 38, Obama 53, Und 9 Obama +15
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 48, Clinton 45, Und 7 McCain +3
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 45, Obama 51, Und 4 Obama +6
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 45, Clinton 42, Und 13 McCain +3
Oregon: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 40, Obama 49, Und 11 Obama +9


So, what have we learned (other than I suck at internetz)? Well, neither Clinton nor Obama 'have' Florida right now. Both trail by 2% points, Obama's poll has more 'undecideds,' which seems to be fairly consistant throughout. Not that there are 3% more undecided votes but the gap between the candidates is the same.

Ohio is roughly the same story.

As is Missouri.

Pennsylvania is a different tale, with Clinton in a commanding lead over McCain and Obama with a thin one. The barest of sheens for CH's premise.

But then there is Colorado, where McCain appears to be stomping all over Clinton but losing to Obama.

The nail gets hammered in New Hampshire where Obama slams McCain by +13 to Clinton's +2.

So, three states where Clinton is losing by by roughly the same margin as Obama to McCain, one where she wins by more than he would, one she would lose that Obama would win and one that Obama would walk away with while Clinton would squeak.

So, there it is, evidence regarding CH's premise. And once again it isn't nearly as conclusive as he would hope and in some cases completely contrary.

And, of course, I suck at internetz.

More EDITs, because you can never have enough (and more EDITS)-
Clinton seems to be losing to McCain over all in Feb. 11 polls (except one) while Obama still leads-
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen (Thu) McCain 48, Clinton 41, Und 11 McCain +7
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen (Thu) McCain 42, Obama 46, Und 12 Obama +4
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton USA Today/Gallup McCain 49, Clinton 48, Und 3 McCain +1
General Election: McCain vs. Obama USA Today/Gallup McCain 46, Obama 50, Und 4 Obama +4
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton AP-Ipsos McCain 45, Clinton 46, Und 7 Clinton +1
General Election: McCain vs. Obama AP-Ipsos McCain 42, Obama 48, Und 8 Obama +6

Yeah, you really do.

But mostly it's just because at this point I know better than to ask you for any sort of support for your assertion and I'm having a hard time finding a list of traditional swing states to check how the candidates have done in them so far except Connecticut, which Obama won. Likely you'll cite Florida and then we'll have to through that stupid merry-go-round again. For some reason Ohio isn't on CNN's summary sight, nor Pennsylvania.

Alright, so while I was typing this and trying to figure out why I was still watching The Dukes of Hazzard, I found a list. Granted, it's on Wikipedia, but whatever.

So it lists the swing states as follows-

That one goes to Clinton in a near statistical tie. A difference of @8,000 votes doesn't overwhelm, or the delegate tie. But granting your premise its best shot, we'll give it to you.


They don't have a primary until April 22nd, but Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html) has Clinton polling ahead of Obama. Granted the last poll was taken Jan 14th, but again, giving as much justice to your premise, we'll give it to you, with the caveat that things can change, as we saw last Tuesday when Clinton was supposed to wrap this thing up.


Here you point is the strongest, with Clinton in a big lead. I will not dismiss this lead as it being a 'home' state because that doesn't make the votes count any less in the end. But keep that in mind.


We've gone over this so much it makes me want to cry. When they have a real primary we'll assign the state one way or the other. Moving on.


Ah, Virginy...we'll see on Tuesday. Virginia looks to be leaning Obama (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/obama_leads_in.html). Since we gave Clinton one based on polling, it's only fair to give this one to Obama. Perhaps that will change on Tuesday, but for now, one for Obama.


Iowa went to Obama in a bit of a squeaker. But more of a margin than the one we granted to Clinton earlier, so for consistencies sake, this one is Obama, too.


Don't even start with me on this. Obama wasn't even on the ballot and as it is 40% of the voters turned out just to not vote for Clinton. No, no one gets this until they come to their senses and have a real primary.


Obama takes this one in a slammer, 67% to 32%.


Obama in another squeaker. A delegate dead heat. But again, we granted Clinton the delegate dead heat for popular vote advantage, consistency.


Ohio does it's deal the first week of March, the first poll Google gave me (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/ohio.html) has Clinton in a handy lead there. One for Clinton.


Same place (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wisconsin.html) give it to Clinton. Just noticed you can scroll down for multiple polls. This is taking forever so I'm not going to amend the last one, if someone scrolls down and finds the results inconclusive I'm happy to be corrected.


Another drubbing here, Obama takes 67% compared to 32%.


Ah, Nevada. A bit sticky as Obama took it in terms of delegates but Clinton took it for popular vote. We've already established a preference for popular vote, so this goes to Clinton in the squeaker to beat all squeakers.


They're still counting this state, apparently. Dead heat. Right now Clinton is ahead, so to give your premise the greatest chance we'll give it to Clinton, but this could change as well.


Oregon does it's thing in May, and again same place (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/oregon.html) gives it to Clinton.

Sweet crap that took forever. I shouldn't even have to do it, it's your fucking premise, but rather than waste four pages asking for it it was easier for me to just do your work for you.

So, let me see if I can collect this up into a tally of some sort.

Clinton
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Ohio
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon

Obama
Wisconsin
Virginia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado
EDIT:Please look at new comments to why this chart doesn't match quoted text
Bold are states that have already had their primaries/caucuses.

Taken as a whole your premise technically stands. Of the swing states that have had or will have actual primaries, Clinton leads 8-5. However, you did say won, and you're a stickler for what you actually said. You give her Nevada, Arkansas and New Mexico. (and Florida, but we've covered that). Of those three, she's only definitively won one of them and still hasn't officially won New Mexico. Of the four swing states she's won, three have been squeakers and one slam dunk.

Of the dead tie in won swing states Obama has has two slam dunks and two squeakers.

What we see is that your premise is on the shakiest of grounds. Of the eight swing states that have had legitimate primaries it's split 50/50, and of those wins Obama has the more definitive wins. Hell, one of Clinton's could actually turn out to be an Obama state, though it seems that that is not the way the wind is going.

Now, I think I can say I've been as fair as I can be to your premise and it doesn't seem to wash. Obama is carrying swing states the same as Clinton and more definitively.

Between that and the fact that Obama is polling better than Clinton against McCain, the foundations of your support are shakier and shakier. Perhaps you should have chose who to back based on positions instead of vote mongering.

Fuck, that took almost as long to post as it did to write...you fucking owe me.

So there it is again. Calling once again this 'Obama wins red states so it doesn't matter.' When you look at the swing states, Obama has won, that's won, not leads in polls, 6 to Clinton's four. She leads in the three left, but at the time I made that list, she led in Wisconsin, too. And now she's losing 58% to 42% with 86% reporting.

And then there's the swing state polling.

We're not building your syrup fire hose for Pancake Rain Tuesday because you have failed to convince us of its likleyhood. EDIT: FOrgot this was here, too. Changes in the swing state polling in green.

Oh not this bullshit again. Obama is winning more swing states than Clinton. Obama is also has won 23 states. 23. With that wide a swarth he's bound to have won quite a few red states. This is an empty statement and it gets emptier as time goes by and yet you keep pounding it like it means something.

Undoubtedly, he'll reply by saying "but he has won more traditionally red states", ignoring that he's also won more traditionally blue states than Hillary and more swing states than Hillary. His arguments are inane.

Obama is winning the traditionally Red States, which I believe will stay Red in the general election.
First off, there was no such thing as red-state/blue-state until 2000, so there's no such thing as "traditional". I read somewhere just this week that Virginia is "itching to go blue".

Irrelevant to say the least.
How? If both sides are openly contested and one has substantially more turnout than the other, how does that not foreshadow the general election? Especially in a primary.

Virginia will stay Red. Missouri is a possible swing but in the last election, a weaker Bush still beat Kerry by 7.2%. I believe that Clinton would have a better shot at winning the State.
See above. There is no incumbent. Incumbents get an automatic guaranteed vote. If you subtract that, Kerry won or at least tied. Clinton has a chance in hell of getting much more than what Kerry did. With her, well see either a narrow election (49-48) or a decisive Republican election (55-45).

You cannot predict how those States will go by the Primary votes.
You can forecast it as long as the primaries are openly contested.

Now, with a (I hate using these classifications) very credible African-American candidate, that community will turn out in HUGE numbers to vote for him because they might never get the chance to again.
Battleground states:

Arkansas-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Colorado-Dole/Bush/Bush
Florida-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Indiana-Dole/Bush/Bush
Iowa-Clinton/Gore/Bush
Kentucky-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Michigan-Clinton/Gore/Kerry
Minnesota-Clinton/Gore/Kerry
Missouri-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Nevada-Clinton/Bush/Bush
New Hampshire-Clinton/Bush/Kerry
New Mexico-Clinton/Gore/Bush
Ohio-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Oregon-Clinton/Gore/Kerry
Pennsylvania-Clinton/Gore/Kerry
Tennessee-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Virginia-Dole/Bush/Bush
West Virginia-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Wisconsin-Clinton/Gore/Bush

Total of 207 electoral votes. Democrats have 184 Republicans have 148.
Bill Clinton won 376-162. Red state blue state my ass. Have a nice day, sir.

Battleground states:

Arkansas-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Colorado-Dole/Bush/Bush
Florida-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Indiana-Dole/Bush/Bush
Iowa-Clinton/Gore/Bush
Kentucky-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Michigan-Clinton/Gore/Kerry
Minnesota-Clinton/Gore/Kerry
Missouri-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Nevada-Clinton/Bush/Bush
New Hampshire-Clinton/Bush/Kerry
New Mexico-Clinton/Gore/Bush
Ohio-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Oregon-Clinton/Gore/Kerry
Pennsylvania-Clinton/Gore/Kerry
Tennessee-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Virginia-Dole/Bush/Bush
West Virginia-Clinton/Bush/Bush
Wisconsin-Clinton/Gore/Kerry



Fixed

...that's the third person I've had to correct on that point. What gives?

Reporting1st Place2nd Place
HI 100% Obama 76%Clinton 24%
WI 99% Obama 58%Clinton 41%

Obama won by more than 10% in both states.

His winning streak is now up to 10 states. Lets see how the Clinton camp is going to spin this one.

Obama won by more than 10% in both states.

His winning streak is now up to 10 states. Lets see how the Clinton camp is going to spin this one.

Everything up to the March 4th primary has been pre-spun. The losses here were expected, she made them 'not as bad' as she works her firewall in Texas.

Of course that's a harder sell when she loses by almost the same gap as Huckabee lost to McCain, and all her base groups save people over 60 deserted her this time around, but thats what she's going to go with. Her speech didn't even acknowledge that she lost.

It looks like her constituency is indeed bailing for Obama. I noticed that when I looked at the exit numbers.

So let me get this straight, people being turned off by back room deals overriding the popular vote of quite possibly the most active democratic constituency ever are going to be responsible for the destruction of the party and not the campaign conspiring to do so? Really? You're supposition is that Obama supporters should simply roll over and take it?

Obviously, the party is important no matter what it does. The goal is to make sure that the person in the White House has a (D) next to their name. That is all that matters.

Obama won by more than 10% in both states.

His winning streak is now up to 10 states. Lets see how the Clinton camp is going to spin this one.

"Those states don't count. Hawaii was a caucus, so it definitely doesn't count."

"Those states don't count. Hawaii was a caucus, so it definitely doesn't count."

I love Hillary Clinton quotes even though she was talking about caucuses in general. (not to be confused with the Caucus Mountain Range in Central Asia)

So there it is again. Calling once again this 'Obama wins red states so it doesn't matter.' When you look at the swing states, Obama has won, that's won, not leads in polls, 6 to Clinton's four. She leads in the three left, but at the time I made that list, she led in Wisconsin, too. And now she's losing 58% to 42% with 86% reporting.

And then there's the swing state polling.

We're not building your syrup fire hose for Pancake Rain Tuesday because you have failed to convince us of its likleyhood. EDIT: FOrgot this was here, too. Changes in the swing state polling in green.

Sadly, he claims he wants substance, but you'll note that though he is active in other threads, he's painted a wide path around anything like these posts. Not hard to fathom why.

Sadly, he claims he wants substance, but you'll note that though he is active in other threads, he's painted a wide path around anything like these posts. Not hard to fathom why.

After dragging the research posts through three threads for him to address we've gone beyond leading a horse to water and placed him in the middle of the damn pond. One can only chuckle at that point when he cranes his neck and says, "What water?"

Fixed

...that's the third person I've had to correct on that point. What gives?
Yeah, why the hell did I write the wrong thing...

Obviously, the party is important no matter what it does. The goal is to make sure that the person in the White House has a (D) next to their name. That is all that matters.

I'd much rather John McCain (R) than Hillary Clinton (D) and all sane people agree with me. The party is irrelevant in American politics--they are effectively the same.

I'd much rather John McCain (R) than Hillary Clinton (D) and all sane people agree with me. The party is irrelevant in American politics--they are effectively the same.

I must not be sane.

Pray tell, on what issues are you backing Obama over Clinton AND McCain over Clinton?

As I've pointed out many times on these forums Obama and Clinton are nigh identical on the issues, but both offer a stark contrast to McCain.

It seems to me that anyone that would back Obama and then McCain simply has personal issues with Clinton that they are letting override their judgment on the issues.

It seems to me that anyone that would back Obama and then McCain simply has personal issues with Clinton that they are letting override their judgment on the issues.
He's probably picking candidates on the "Who would you rather drink beer with at a picnic?" criterion, which is how we got into the mess we have now.

Teamsters are sure with Obama. They are endorsing him.

I must not be sane.

Pray tell, on what issues are you backing Obama over Clinton AND McCain over Clinton?

As I've pointed out many times on these forums Obama and Clinton are nigh identical on the issues, but both offer a stark contrast to McCain.

It seems to me that anyone that would back Obama and then McCain simply has personal issues with Clinton that they are letting override their judgment on the issues.


McCain and Obama will unite this country. Clinton will keep it divided.
Her last name is Clinton. That's enough of a disqualifier as anything.
She's a crazy, lying, pandering, egotistical bitch.
She won't recant her Iraq vote and voted for Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
Clinton has no issues. She just wants to put Clinton cronies back in power. 8 years of cronyism is enough.

I must not be sane.

Pray tell, on what issues are you backing Obama over Clinton AND McCain over Clinton?

As I've pointed out many times on these forums Obama and Clinton are nigh identical on the issues, but both offer a stark contrast to McCain.

It seems to me that anyone that would back Obama and then McCain simply has personal issues with Clinton that they are letting override their judgment on the issues.
McCain and Clinton have both publicly stated their support for censorship over free expression, and the suppression of speech they deem unsafe for children.

Obama has done no such thing.

McCain and Obama will unite this country. Clinton will keep it divided.
Her last name is Clinton. That's enough of a disqualifier as anything.
She's a crazy, lying, pandering, egotistical bitch.


She won't recant her Iraq vote and voted for Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.


Clinton has no issues. She just wants to put Clinton cronies back in power. 8 years of cronyism is enough.


Thank you for making my point. Your issues are primarily with Clinton as a person and not on any objective points of policy.

Universal health care, long-term energy policy, fiscal responsibility, etc. are among a few of Clinton's issues.

It is rather bizarre to deride Clinton's vote on Iraq and Iran and then turn around and embrace a candidate that (1) voted those same ways and (2) thinks the Iraq war is still a good idea.

And, btw, I want those Clinton cronies back in power. They are infinitely superior to the Bush cronies that McCain will keep in power.

Universal health care, long-term energy policy, fiscal responsibility, etc. are among a few of Clinton's issues.

And I prefer Obama's views on Healthcare over Hillary's.

And, btw, I want those Clinton cronies back in power. They are infinitely superior to the Bush cronies that McCain will keep in power.

I'm done with cronyism.

Bully for you. Care to explain why?

Because Obama's makes more sense with the population that we have.

Again, good for you. But that doesn't provide a criteria for supporting McCain over Clinton, which was the issue.

To put it simply, we do not need a divisive candidate as a presidential candidate. We need someone able to work both sides plus the independents. Clinton cannot do that. Period.

McCain and Clinton have both publicly stated their support for censorship over free expression, and the suppression of speech they deem unsafe for children.

Could you link what you are talking about? I've found people make these charges but don't really have the substance to back them up. For example, Clinton was widely criticized re flag burning when it turned out Obama voted for the same bill and McCain would amend the Constitution on the issue.

Obama has done no such thing.

Which is a good reason for supporting Obama. And I do.

But you haven't given any criteria for supporting McCain over Clinton (if Obama loses), which was the question.

And I prefer Obama's views on Healthcare over Hillary's.

Bully for you. Care to explain why?

More to the point, do you prefer McCain's views on healthcare to Clinton's? Obama and Clinton are far, far closer on the issue than either is to McCain.

I'm done with cronyism.

Again, good for you. But that doesn't provide a criteria for supporting McCain over Clinton, which was the issue.

McCain and Clinton have both publicly stated their support for censorship over free expression, and the suppression of speech they deem unsafe for children.

Obama has done no such thing.
Yes, this too I forget about. Her opinions on censorship of video games.

Thank you for making my point. Your issues are primarily with Clinton as a person and not on any objective points of policy.

Universal health care, long-term energy policy, fiscal responsibility, etc. are among a few of Clinton's issues.

It is rather bizarre to deride Clinton's vote on Iraq and Iran and then turn around and embrace a candidate that (1) voted those same ways and (2) thinks the Iraq war is still a good idea.

And, btw, I want those Clinton cronies back in power. They are infinitely superior to the Bush cronies that McCain will keep in power.

McCain would run the war properly. Clinton cronies are equally shitty to Bush cronies. McCain will not have Bush cronies back in power. Do you really think Halliburton will be getting more contracts under McCain?

Could you link what you are talking about? I've found people make these charges but don't really have the substance to back them up. For example, Clinton was widely criticized re flag burning when it turned out Obama voted for the same bill and McCain would amend the Constitution on the issue.
My censorship remarks are based on comments both McCain and Hillary made about violence in video games. I could probably track down a link, probably through the ESA or IGDA.
Which is a good reason for supporting Obama. And I do.
As do I. I certainly support him over Clinton.
But you haven't given any criteria for supporting McCain over Clinton (if Obama loses), which was the question.
I don't really have one; I think they'd both be dreadful. I might be tempted to choose McCain over Hillary for economic reasons (I generally prefer Republicans), but McCain isn't much of a conservative. Fred Thompson was the only Republican I really liked in this race.

I was just responding to your assertion that Obama and Clinton are nearly identical. I think they're sufficienly different to warrant having a strong preference for one over the other.

It's quite obvious that she just wants the power and won't do a damn thing for this country. It'll be four more years of BS under a Hillary House.



I can not wait to see what kind of nuclear option Hillary has in her pocket.

Also can't wait to see what CBS and the lefties try before the general election.

Thank you for making my point. Your issues are primarily with Clinton as a person and not on any objective points of policy.Honesty is not a subjective quality. I didn't used to hate Hillary, but the way she has waged her campaign indicates to me that she has no qualms with lying and misleading to get her way. In such a case, how can we take any of her platform at its word? Particularly in cases (NAFTA, bankruptcy bill) where she either voted for or used to support the other side?
Universal health care, long-term energy policy, fiscal responsibility, etc. are among a few of Clinton's issues.For all we know...