NationStates Jolt Archive

did the burbs come in yet?

Dunno, but look at the numbers now. I'm practically psychic.

I didn't say any of that. I simply said she smashed him in most of the counties and that she'll use that for ammunition, which she will.
I believe that you are right and after looking at the by county map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#PADEMMAPprimary)and listening to this video (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/04/22/lklv.king.dukakis.cnn), I do believe that she would have a stronger case.

Dunno, but look at the numbers now. I'm practically psychic.

yeah, but last i saw the suburban counties around philly hadn't reported in much, and they have a big chunk of the remaining population (and obama presumably did pretty well there).

This will eek into double digits, methinks. We're gonna see the lead extend as the rural counties come in at the end.

Still not the victory she needed.Right. This insurmountable hurdle the pro-Obama pundits invented for her doesn't really square with reality. Why? Because of a little-known secret in this race: the pledged delegates don't matter one lick. The superdelegates hold all the cards, so the wins state by state since Super Tuesday have all been about convincing the superdelegates that they would be the more formidable candidate.

So basically, she lost on Super Tuesday.Winning California + New York + New Jersey = "lost"?

So she gives up 11 contests in a row to create a firewall of 4 delegates. FOUR.You're honestly going to blame Hillary for the Democrats' fucked-up delegate allocation system? I already told you, the pledges don't matter. Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates.

Then she gives up some more painting the PA win as a inevitable landslide. So much for a landslide.12 points isn't shabby, either. 56-44 is usually considered a handy win, isn't it? Not when the media is building up artificial expectations, I suppose.

And yet she keeps talking about he can close it out on her? She's a good candidate. According to her, a better candidate than McCain and she can't beat him. First, what does it say about her that she can't beat the guy who can't close?Umm, she's actually winning. We haven't been able to say that about Obama in awhile, have we?

In fact, she can't even compete with him on any metric. Second, considering she claims she'll smoke McCain in the general and he's doing better than her... do the math.Except all the general election polls showing her competing better then Obama in states like Ohio ... Pennsylvania ... Michigan ... Arkansas ... Florida ... New Jersey ... California ...

Not to mention the match-ups putting such hardcore Dem states as New York and Massachusetts into play if Obama wins the nomination!

This will eek into double digits, methinks. We're gonna see the lead extend as the rural counties come in at the end.
Double digits would be nice. :)

Still not the victory she needed.
She will be able to make a strong case for continuing. Yes she needed to win by at least the margin that she got.

So basically, she lost on Super Tuesday. So she gives up 11 contests in a row to create a firewall of 4 delegates. FOUR.
She gave up on those contests? I saw a map earlier that laid out the events that Clinton attended in the states that you claim that she gave up, and in many of them, she had more events than Obama did. If I can find that article again, I will post it.

Then she gives up some more painting the PA win as a inevitable landslide.
Where does she paint "the PA win as a inevitable landslide".

See, Republicans are already tying Barack Obama in with 'radical', aligning her with Nancy Pelosi - I just don't see it for the Democrats this year at the moment, I think the Republicans, again, are going to win by focusing on character rather than issues.

Link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Obama_used_to_attack_Democratic_candidate_in_new_ad.html)

Right. This insurmountable hurdle the pro-Obama pundits invented for her doesn't really square with reality. Why? Because of a little-known secret in this race: the pledged delegates don't matter one lick. The superdelegates hold all the cards

except that while the supers are democrats, not even democrats are stupid enough to directly oppose the results of their own primaries and caucuses. not without some really fucking good reason to, at least. being able to eek out narrow victories in a couple states ain't that sort of reason.

except that while the supers are democrats, not even democrats are stupid enough to directly oppose the results of their own primaries and caucuses. not without some really fucking good reason to, at least. being able to eek out narrow victories in a couple states ain't that sort of reason.
Perhaps you missed this post and the poll by Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/132730). Some interesting thoughts regarding musings such as yours above:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13626781&postcount=106

Originally Posted by Newsweek poll:
Suppose it is left to the party leaders and elected officials known as the super delegates to decide whether Clinton or Obama is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. In which of the following ways would you MOST like to see them make their choice? Should the super delegates…(READ)
BASED ON REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Total Clinton Obama

38 35 39 Choose the candidate who won the biggest share of the POPULAR VOTE in primaries and caucuses across the country, or

12 7 16 Choose the candidate who won the most DELEGATES in the primaries and caucuses, or

46 54 41 Choose the candidate who is BEST QUALIFIED to be the nominee in their judgment?

4 4 4 Don't know
100 100 100

Perhaps you missed this post and the poll by Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/132730). Some interesting thoughts regarding musings such as yours above:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13626781&postcount=106

ok, what do you think that poll says? because i don't see how it helps your case at all, even on the most charitable interpretation i can think of for you - which involves quite a lot of creative misunderstanding.

Double digits would be nice. :)

But they change nothing. She's demonstrated that no matter how much the demographics favor her, she can't get the kinds of landslides Obama can. NC is going to seal that message up nicely. He's getting better results than her at a time when she needs to not only get bigger landslides than this, but bigger than this in EVERY state.

She will be able to make a strong case for continuing. Yes she needed to win by at least the margin that she got.

No, she needed to win by a landslide. She obviously cannot get them. Only landslides by your own definition will allow her to remotely catch up. She hasn't don't anything here. He's going to once again show he's better at blowouts than she is.


She gave up on those contests? I saw a map earlier that laid out the events that Clinton attended in the states that you claim that she gave up, and in many of them, she had more events than Obama did. If I can find that article again, I will post it.

And? Are you honestly claiming she didn't have a firewall strategy? Amusingly, let's go with your claim. Let's say she just sucks so bad that he annihilated her in 11 straight contests with her giving a full run at them. You like that scenario better?



Where does she paint "the PA win as a inevitable landslide".

Heh. Not recently, of course. Are you seriously going to claim they weren't expecting a "big, big win" when we started toward this contest? What she's demonstrated is that no matter where she starts as a contest comes up, she loses momentum. That's a bad sign since she's only tied with McCain today.

so what you're asking is;
Are you sexist?
or
Are you racist?

See, Republicans are already tying Barack Obama in with 'radical', aligning her with Nancy Pelosi - I just don't see it for the Democrats this year at the moment, I think the Republicans, again, are going to win by focusing on character rather than issues.

Link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Obama_used_to_attack_Democratic_candidate_in_new_ad.html)
As ecstatic as the feminist in me would be if Barack Obama was female, I do believe you mean him. ;)

Umm, she's actually winning. We haven't been able to say that about Obama in awhile, have we?
Yes, we have. He won the last three states before this, including Texas, and is winning overall.

Get it through your head. Obama is winning.

Hillary is trying to paint those states she is projected to do well in as the decisive battles when they're not. She is still losing, and her small win here will not hold back the Obama tidal wave.

As ecstatic as the feminist in me would be if Barack Obama was female, I do believe you mean him. ;)

Ha...totally :)

Although this line makes me think...

While Clinton did not actually call Obama a wimp in Pennsylvania, she did say he was “elitist and out of touch” and “demeaning.” She can also drink him under the table.

A good way to wrap up this nomination would be to sit them down at a table with a few bottles of Vodka and a couple of shot glasses. Whoever lasts longer wins it.

Right. This insurmountable hurdle the pro-Obama pundits invented for her doesn't really square with reality. Why? Because of a little-known secret in this race: the pledged delegates don't matter one lick. The superdelegates hold all the cards, so the wins state by state since Super Tuesday have all been about convincing the superdelegates that they would be the more formidable candidate.

Usually, this is done through having the majority of the pledged delegates. Due to the particular circumstances of this race, neither candidate can gain enough pledged delegates.

The key issue is what makes a formidable candidate. Senator Clinton has a large number of flaws when it comes to being a candidate, mainly due to her electibility as well as her specific leadership skills, whereas Obama lacks these flaws, though he does have a few of his own.

Winning California + New York + New Jersey = "lost"?


No, but Obama did win most of the other Super Tuesday states, and in those where he didn't win outright, the overall percentage outcome allowed him to still rack up huge numbers of delegates, which is the real key here.

You're honestly going to blame Hillary for the Democrats' fucked-up delegate allocation system? I already told you, the pledges don't matter. Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates.


No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that her strategies of firewalls and the like simply aren't working.

12 points isn't shabby, either. 56-44 is usually considered a handy win, isn't it? Not when the media is building up artificial expectations, I suppose.


Pennsylvania was supposed to be a blowout. Furthermore, that win, while certainly good on its own, is not anywhere near good enough for her needs. In order for her to sway the superdelegates, she needs to rack up a very large number of pledged delegates. She hasn't done that here. She has, at most, gained thirty or so, which does not place her close enough, especially when taking into account the rest of the primaries.


Umm, she's actually winning. We haven't been able to say that about Obama in awhile, have we?

Actually, we have, as recently as the last few primaries. Again, though, it's the quality of the win that counts, and she's not making the quality.

Except all the general election polls showing her competing better then Obama in states like Ohio ... Pennsylvania ... Michigan ... Arkansas ... Florida ... New Jersey ... California ...

Most of those states are Democratic strongholds which would very likely go for Senator Obama regardless. The two that aren't--Florida and Arkansas--most definitely have potential for swaying. Remember, Senator Obama has yet to truly focus on the general election. Given his propensity for bringing together voters just from the primaries, I think we can safely say that Senator Obama would garner a lot more support.

Not to mention the match-ups putting such hardcore Dem states as New York and Massachusetts into play if Obama wins the nomination!
No, it doesn't, especially not with McCain, who is a rather weak candidate at best.

Umm, she's actually winning. We haven't been able to say that about Obama in

Do North Carolina and Indiana not count now, or are you just woefully ignorant? Remember, more states but Ohio, Texas, and Penn vote.


Me thinks the later.


ps- The arguement that Clinton has a better shot because she won California and New York are fucking stupid because NEITHR OF THOSE STATES WILL GO RED. No matter who the democrat is, that state will go to them.

Right. This insurmountable hurdle the pro-Obama pundits invented for her doesn't really square with reality. Why? Because of a little-known secret in this race: the pledged delegates don't matter one lick. The superdelegates hold all the cards, so the wins state by state since Super Tuesday have all been about convincing the superdelegates that they would be the more formidable candidate.

I suppose that getting less states, less delegates and less popular vote is a great argument for how "formidable" one is. Frost that cake with some Republican fear tactics. And, of course, the supers have been piling on for her since Super Tuesday, right?


Winning California + New York + New Jersey = "lost"?
Coming out in a tie against a virtual unkown is losing. It was evidence for a rather large shift of momentum. A shift that has certainly been apparent ever since.

You're honestly going to blame Hillary for the Democrats' fucked-up delegate allocation system? I already told you, the pledges don't matter. Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates.
Again, how many supers has she gotten since Super Tuesday? How many has Obama gotten? The race is over, it's just a matter how long it takes to become official.

12 points isn't shabby, either. 56-44 is usually considered a handy win, isn't it? Not when the media is building up artificial expectations, I suppose.
Or she is. Even Bill said she needed a big, big win some time ago. And are you just making up numbers? 12 points? She's up by 10%.

12 points certainly doesn't compare to the last two wins by Obama. You know those wins you ignore below. Wins by over 20%. Obama has more wins that are over 12 points than Hillary has wins.
Umm, she's actually winning. We haven't been able to say that about Obama in awhile, have we?
Pardon? He's been winning for two months. However, if we're talking about individual contests. Who won the last two? He did. She won two states on Little Super Tuesday. He won two. You have a pretty amusing definition of winning.
Except all the general election polls showing her competing better then Obama in states like Ohio ... Pennsylvania ... Michigan ... Arkansas ... Florida ... New Jersey ... California ...
And overall worse. Good thing there aren't only a couple of states but a whole country, no?
Not to mention the match-ups putting such hardcore Dem states as New York and Massachusetts into play if Obama wins the nomination!
Heh. New York? Seriously, lay off the Kool-aid. New York goes red MAYBE if there is no dem candidate at all.

Right. This insurmountable hurdle the pro-Obama pundits invented for her doesn't really square with reality. Why? Because of a little-known secret in this race: the pledged delegates don't matter one lick. The superdelegates hold all the cards, so the wins state by state since Super Tuesday have all been about convincing the superdelegates that they would be the more formidable candidate.

Winning California + New York + New Jersey = "lost"?

You're honestly going to blame Hillary for the Democrats' fucked-up delegate allocation system? I already told you, the pledges don't matter. Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates.

12 points isn't shabby, either. 56-44 is usually considered a handy win, isn't it? Not when the media is building up artificial expectations, I suppose.

Umm, she's actually winning. We haven't been able to say that about Obama in awhile, have we?

Except all the general election polls showing her competing better then Obama in states like Ohio ... Pennsylvania ... Michigan ... Arkansas ... Florida ... New Jersey ... California ...

Not to mention the match-ups putting such hardcore Dem states as New York and Massachusetts into play if Obama wins the nomination!

Ok, so I saw everything you wrote and I can sum up my response as such. You're presuming that New York, California, New Jersey, etc. will go red simply without Hillary.

I just wanted to repost this interesting perspective on how to see tonight. Obama is still on the path to winning the nomination. There are more delegates in NC and IN than in PA. NC he should win soundly. Thing in Indiana are up in the air. Either way it should be close. All things considered, tonight is not a time to feel worried or overly confident. It simply pushes the contest further down the line. The longer this goes the better it is for Obama. Anyhow, have fun with this...

1. Remember that there's no way Hillary can become the nominee without a superdelegate coup -- which would alienate a generation of young Democrats and dangerously fracture the party.

2. Remember that her campaign leaked internals showing an eleven point lead (as a means of firing up her supporters and getting out the vote). Therefore, any win smaller than eleven points should be considered a disappointment by her own assessment.

3. Remember that every time Hillary begins a sentence with "you know," or "my opponent," the next thing out of her mouth is a lie.

4. Remember that when Clinton surrogates say "this proves Obama can't win the big states," they're ignoring the fact that he actually won more delegates in Texas -- not to mention twice as many states as she has.

5. Remember that when the pundits argue that Obama can't win in white rural areas because they broke for Hillary, they're ignoring the fact that he won (in alphabetical order): Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

6. Remember that when Hillary talks about who will be "better against John McCain in the fall," she's talking about the fall of 2012.

7. Remember that Hillary's campaign is $10M in debt, while Obama's has more than $40M in cash on hand.

8. Remember that Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania was as a high as 26 points only a month ago.

9. Remember that Hillary's late Pennsylvania rebound was forged in the fires of negativity and fear-mongering.

10. Remember that the only manufacturing job Hillary ever brought to Pennsylvania was the manufactured notion that she was a middle-class, whisky-swilling duck killer, and not an anti-union multi-millionaire.

It's down to about 9.5. I still think it'll end up at 10%. No landslide here.

First, Texas is a pretty poor win for Senator Obama to claim, when the popular vote, among 3 million voters, went to Hillary Clinton 51-47.

The caucuses, merely 40, 000 votes, went 56-43.

40, 000 votes, with a difference of 5, 000 made all the difference compared to the popular vote of 3, 000, 000 where 110, 000 was the difference.

Yet the split in delegates means 40, 000 votes gets 33% of the delegates.

Now, according to the system, fair and square, Senator Obama won, we can even call it a better strategy.

However, according to the system, super delegates can vote how they see fit and none of the arguments I've seen so far have made truly compelling case for either candidate. Senator Obama has mostly won smaller states that sit in the Republican camp anyway aside from Illinois, well Senator Clinton won New York - big surprise.

However, he should take states such as California, New York and those states that Senator Clinton has won as well.

The way I see it, it really depends on the few key states that are mostly up for grabs.

From the last election..

1. Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
2. Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
3. New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
4. New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
5. Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
6. Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
7. Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
8. Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
9. Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
10. Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%

I'd throw Florida in there as well though I think John McCain will take it naturally.

Of those, only a few have the numbers to really make a difference, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Both sides can claim they can win these against John McCain but Senator Clinton won each of them in the primaries, aside from Michigan, which doesn't really count, she can 'claim' it however.

The fact is that she has a case, it may not be very strong, it may not be right but she certainly has a case.

The fact is that it's all about who makes the stronger case, for me I feel Senator Obama has done this although, as I've previously said, I don't think either will beat John McCain.

We can throw polling numbers all day, the fact is that people have a total bias in reading poll numbers even where they're in any way accurate.

It's still open, I feel Senator Clinton has the weakest case due to 2 outstanding factors - popular vote/delegate total.

Yet this doesn't automatically relate to the actual race, for that, there is still a case to be made and until one person gains an outright advantage, simply stating things one way or another is fairly futile.

Well, looking at what is very nearly the final numbers, she'll fall just a hair under 10%. About 9.8, roughly.

Has anyone thought of a question for my answer?

Here is the answer. Tell me the question.

A landslide in PA.
Super Tuesday wasn't a turning point in the race.
Texas, Ohio, etc. will be a firewall.

name three false claims of the Clinton Campaign?

what are three things that turned out not to be true?

What does bullshit look like?

Perhaps you missed this post and the poll by Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/132730). Some interesting thoughts regarding musings such as yours above:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13626781&postcount=106

Still trying to poll this shit CH? I've already hit you over the head with the hammer. The majority of the people do not want what you want.

Do North Carolina and Indiana not count now, or are you just woefully ignorant? Remember, more states but Ohio, Texas, and Penn vote.


Me thinks the later.


ps- The arguement that Clinton has a better shot because she won California and New York are fucking stupid because NEITHR OF THOSE STATES WILL GO RED. No matter who the democrat is, that state will go to them.

Be that as it may, there are more independents than republicans/democrats in the state of California.

First, Texas is a pretty poor win for Senator Obama to claim, when the popular vote, among 3 million voters, went to Hillary Clinton 51-47.

The caucuses, merely 40, 000 votes, went 56-43.

40, 000 votes, with a difference of 5, 000 made all the difference compared to the popular vote of 3, 000, 000 where 110, 000 was the difference.

Not in Texas it doesn't. It all matters and Obama came out of Texas with more delegates than Clinton did. As such, he did win Texas.

Oh and I just saw the preliminary delegate total. Clinton had 82 delegates and Obama had 69delegates

And she claimed that the tide is turning. She really needs to look at North Carolina to see how wrong that is.

Billary just stated on CNN that if he can't win the states that he needs to win what makes him best to win the general.

Sounds like someone has been taking CH lessons.

What a fucking twat.

Well, looking at what is very nearly the final numbers, she'll fall just a hair under 10%. About 9.8, roughly.

cnn now has it at 9.38% (well, they are still pretending that rounds up to 10, but nobody seems to be much good at math in this primary campaign), and the few outstanding precincts are in places where obama tended to do quite well. looks like a single digit win for sure.

hey, remember how in the old thread i ran through the numbers of what she would need to do to pull off a legitimate win in the democratic portion of the democratic primary? she formerly needed something like 67% of the remaining pledged delegates. after her huge win in pa, she now only needs to win 72% of the remaining pledged delegates. progress!

cnn now has it at 9.38% (well, they are still pretending that rounds up to 10, but nobody seems to be much good at math in this primary campaign), and the few outstanding precincts are in places where obama tended to do quite well. looks like a single digit win for sure.

also, remember how in the old thread i ran through the numbers of what she would need to do to pull off a legitimate win in the democratic portion of the democratic primary? she formerly needed something like 65%+ of the remaining pledged delegates. after her huge win in pa, she now only needs to win 72% of the remaining pledged delegates.

Delaware and Philadelphia Counties are at 97% reporting each. I do think that this will be single digits as well when all the results are finally reported.

Still trying to poll this shit CH? I've already hit you over the head with the hammer. The majority of the people do not want what you want.

well, even if we give him the plurality win so the largest block is the block to be listened to and ignore the fact that one candidate will satisfy both of the other blocks' criteria and ignore that those other blocks collectively do hit the majority, he still hasn't actually made a case that the supers should overturn things. after all, the metric is just 'best qualified'. and it is a strange thing indeed where coming in second place makes one the best.

well, even if we give him the plurality win so the largest block is the block to be listened to and ignore the fact that one candidate will satisfy both of the other blocks' criteria and ignore that those other blocks collectively do hit the majority, he still hasn't actually made a case that the supers should overturn things. after all, the metric is just 'best qualified'. and it is a strange thing indeed where coming in second place makes one the best.

I can't help but agree with what you are saying here. And the people of North Carolina seem to not be buying her arguments.

Im actually suprised that no one brought ths up yet (if someone has I apologize).

I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them

-Hillary Clinton


Its the first part of that which worries me. More saber rattling at Iran.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

Its gets better. Yay nuclear winter!

Their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/


Wanna tell me shes not a warmonger or batshit crazy now?

Imhttp://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

Its gets better. Yay nuclear winter!



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/


Wanna tell me shes not a warmonger or batshit crazy now?

Well to be fair to Senator Clinton (barfs at the thought) what she says is actually true of any president if someone launches a nuke at their ally Israel. Of course, she did state it publically whereas Obama has been silent but still, I feel that any American President would do the same if Israel was nuked.

Well to be fair to Senator Clinton (barfs at the thought) what she says is actually true of any president if someone launches a nuke at their ally Israel. Of course, she did state it publically whereas Obama has been silent but still, I feel that any American President would do the same if Israel was nuked.

I dont think so, and I dont even think she means it. I dont think the US would use nuclear weapons unless we were nuked. The presidents usually know that retaliating with nukes is only a last option.

Regardless, the first quote disturbs me more. I cant figure out if the first part of he statement is qualified by the second one or not, ie I dont know if she means we'll attack Iran regardless while shes president, or if she would only do it if Israel was attacked.

Apropos of nothing in particular, I'm starting to think Obama's had his day. He's just not ready for America and we're starting to find that out. If he really were the second coming that many think he is, he'd have put this thing away. The fact that Clinton is still viable speaks to his vulnerability.

With each of them sniping at the other, it's going to be fun watching the rest of the path to the convention. And the convention... I'll bet there will be more than a few fireworks inside and out.

cnn now has it at 9.38% (well, they are still pretending that rounds up to 10, but nobody seems to be much good at math in this primary campaign), and the few outstanding precincts are in places where obama tended to do quite well. looks like a single digit win for sure.

hey, remember how in the old thread i ran through the numbers of what she would need to do to pull off a legitimate win in the democratic portion of the democratic primary? she formerly needed something like 67% of the remaining pledged delegates. after her huge win in pa, she now only needs to win 72% of the remaining pledged delegates. progress!

Yeah, I was off on my calculations as well. She actually never broke 9.5%. Yeah, she never even appeared to have a double digit win. But, hey, it's the media's job to make this look like more of a contest. In other news, the Cubs might win the world series last year.

Well to be fair to Senator Clinton (barfs at the thought) what she says is actually true of any president if someone launches a nuke at their ally Israel. Of course, she did state it publically whereas Obama has been silent but still, I feel that any American President would do the same if Israel was nuked.

Problem is:

I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran.

Does it seem to you that there's any pre-condition here besides her wrinkled ass being in the President's seat while a male intern is under the table working through 28-years-old cobwebs?

I dont think so, and I dont even think she means it. I dont think the US would use nuclear weapons unless we were nuked. The presidents usually know that retaliating with nukes is only a last option.

How comforting to the rest of our allies. We won't nuke the nation that nuked you because we were not nuked. That flies in the face of Article V of the NATO treaty. (And that comes into effect if a NATO nation is attacked)

You do not think for one moment that a President is going to sit on his/her hands and do nothing if an ally is nuked?

Regardless, the first quote disturbs me more. I cant figure out if the first part of he statement is qualified by the second one or not, ie I dont know if she means we'll attack Iran regardless while shes president, or if she would only do it if Israel was attacked.

If I'm reading the statement correctly, the last part of the statement is a clue. I am not a fan of Hillary but at the sametime, I do try to be fair to everyone.

Apropos of nothing in particular, I'm starting to think Obama's had his day. He's just not ready for America and we're starting to find that out. If he really were the second coming that many think he is, he'd have put this thing away. The fact that Clinton is still viable speaks to his vulnerability.

With each of them sniping at the other, it's going to be fun watching the rest of the path to the convention. And the convention... I'll bet there will be more than a few fireworks inside and out.

Ha. I think they'll have no problem defeating a candidate who can't even pull ahead when no one is competing with him. That Obama can't put Hillary away speaks to Hillary's candidacy in relation to Obama, not Obama's in relation to McCain. But I guess you have to cling to something, because you're candidate doesn't have anything going for him but a nice smile. It's quite fetching so long as people remember to wipe away the drool.

I suppose that getting less states, less delegates and less popular vote is a great argument for how "formidable" one is. Frost that cake with some Republican fear tactics. And, of course, the supers have been piling on for her since Super Tuesday, right?They must have been "piling on" for Obama. That's why he's already passed the 2,025 mark, right? Oh, wait.

Coming out in a tie against a virtual unkown is losing.A "virtual unknown"? http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

Perhaps you're too young to remember, but Obama's been the media's Shining Star since '04.

It was evidence for a rather large shift of momentum. A shift that has certainly been apparent ever since.Some "momentum." All it's brought us is a three-month quagmire.

Again, how many supers has she gotten since Super Tuesday? How many has Obama gotten? The race is over, it's just a matter how long it takes to become official.Four months with no clear winner ≠ "the race is over."

Or she is. Even Bill said she needed a big, big win some time ago. And are you just making up numbers? 12 points? She's up by 10%.So she was up 12 when I posted that. Is there all that great a difference between 12 points and 10, anyway?

12 points certainly doesn't compare to the last two wins by Obama. You know those wins you ignore below. Wins by over 20%. Obama has more wins that are over 12 points than Hillary has wins.Like Vermont and Mississippi were ever going to go against Obama. He could have put her away had he won either Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania, and robbed her of much-needed momentum. He couldn't.

Pardon? He's been winning for two months. However, if we're talking about individual contests. Who won the last two? He did. She won two states on Little Super Tuesday. He won two. You have a pretty amusing definition of winning.That's some great spin. Obama "won" two states because of Texas' warped two-step allocation plan. Hillary still won more popular votes that day, and even if Obama picked up more delegates in Texas, I'll say it once again: the pledged delegates do not matter. Neither candidate can win without the supers.

And overall worse. Good thing there aren't only a couple of states but a whole country, no?Oh, you mean those national polls giving Obama a 2- or 4-point lead? You still need the Electoral College. And Obama loses if he can't carry Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Heh. New York? Seriously, lay off the Kool-aid.Better tell that to the Marist poll: McCain 48, Obama 46 (http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/GV080409.htm). Although some polls conducted since then have actually given Obama a six-point lead, so I'll give you that.

New York goes red MAYBE if there is no dem candidate at all.Or if the Dems nominate a candidate who cannot compete for traditional blue-collar votes. As seen in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

But I guess you have to cling to something, because you're candidate doesn't have anything going for him but a nice smile.

Even that smile is but senility coming.

*snip*

You really have not been following this race nor have you been studying all aspects of it have you?

Ha. I think they'll have no problem defeating a candidate who can't even pull ahead when no one is competing with him. That Obama can't put Hillary away speaks to Hillary's candidacy in relation to Obama, not Obama's in relation to McCain. But I guess you have to cling to something, because you're candidate doesn't have anything going for him but a nice smile. It's quite fetching so long as people remember to wipe away the drool.

How are you so sure who my candidate is? It isn't Obama or Hill, but that doesn't mean it is the other liberal from the Republican party... I've never forgiven McCain for killing the First Amendment in the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. I know you've seen me refer to that before.

Trying to claim that Hillary means to attack Iran with no provocation is about as convincing as someone saying that a few cannisters of nerve gas meant Iraq really did have WMD.

A "virtual unknown"? http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

Perhaps you're too young to remember, but Obama's been the media's Shining Star since '04.

Wait wait wait. Youre arguing that someone whos been in politics since 04 has an equal amount of name recognition as someone whos husband was a popular president for 8 years? Youre senile or playing dumb.

So she was up 12 when I posted that. Is there all that great a difference between 12 points and 10, anyway?

2%.

That's some great spin. Obama "won" two states because of Texas' warped two-step allocation plan. Hillary still won more popular votes that day, and even if Obama picked up more delegates in Texas,

And Obama has the overall populare vote. So, make up your mind, does the popular vote matter or not?

I'll say it once again: the pledged delegates do not matter. Neither candidate can win without the supers.

Wow, its not like we didnt know that since Super Tuesday.

Oh, you mean those national polls giving Obama a 2- or 4-point lead? You still need the Electoral College. And Obama loses if he can't carry Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Chances are, Penn will go dem either way. Also, Obama can take normally Republican southern states.

How comforting to the rest of our allies. We won't nuke the nation that nuked you because we were not nuked. That flies in the face of Article V of the NATO treaty. (And that comes into effect if a NATO nation is attacked)

You do not think for one moment that a President is going to sit on his/her hands and do nothing if an ally is nuked?

I think any president who understands the concept of nuclear winter and didnt want to start a nuclear war would.



If I'm reading the statement correctly, the last part of the statement is a clue. I am not a fan of Hillary but at the sametime, I do try to be fair to everyone.


I dont know how much I buy it.

How are you so sure who my candidate is? It isn't Obama or Hill, but that doesn't mean it is the other liberal from the Republican party... I've never forgiven McCain for killing the First Amendment in the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. I know you've seen me refer to that before.

I'm so glad you decided to make yourself meaningless in this election.

I'm so glad you decided to make yourself meaningless in this election.

Id rather him vote third party than McCain.

Id rather him vote third party than McCain.

Which is what I said, if in different words.

I think any president who understands the concept of nuclear winter and didnt want to start a nuclear war would.

Um...if logic is to be used, wouldn't the nation that used the nukes first be the ones to start the nuclear war as when nukes begin to be used, it is a nuclear war?

I dont know how much I buy it.

That's the question isn't it?

IN OTHER NEWS:

(CNN) – Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry will endorse Barack Obama's White House bid Wednesday, the Illinois senator's campaign announced.

The endorsement is expected to come in a conference call late Wednesday morning.

Henry, currently serving his second term, had said he did not plan to endorse until the party's convention in late August.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

I'm so glad you decided to make yourself meaningless in this election.
Sometimes one just has to follow their conscience. Usually I just vote to cancel out my wife's vote, but I can't bring myself to go for McCain.

Sometimes one just has to follow their conscience. Usually I just vote to cancel out my wife's vote, but I can't bring myself to go for McCain.

I congratulate your wife on her common sense.

They must have been "piling on" for Obama. That's why he's already passed the 2,025 mark, right? Oh, wait.

the dem system of multi-layered proportional division of pledged delegates means that in a race with two candidates with the drive and cash to keep participating you need obama-landslides in every state to win outright in just the p-dels. as long as someone can keep hanging on, you just don't get there.

A "virtual unknown"? http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

Perhaps you're too young to remember, but Obama's been the media's Shining Star since '04.

i think you have some very mistaken assumptions about the level of political knowledge and engagement of the american public.

Four months with no clear winner ≠ "the race is over."

the fact that math is hard doesn't mean that the winner wasn't obvious after february.

That's some great spin. Obama "won" two states because of Texas' warped two-step allocation plan. Hillary still won more popular votes that day, and even if Obama picked up more delegates in Texas, I'll say it once again: the pledged delegates do not matter. Neither candidate can win without the supers.

pledged delegates matter tons. not only are delegates the only metric of winning, but for each pledged delegate you are down, you have to convince that many more supers to overturn the winner of the democratic contest. and that argument is tough enough if its close. if you are down by 6% (as she is now, and that is going to get worse over the next two weeks), the argument becomes laughable.

and, of course, nobody could win with just the supers.

Or if the Dems nominate a candidate who cannot compete for traditional blue-collar votes. As seen in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

the fact that some voting block prefers x over y does not imply that they also prefer z over y.

You really have not been following this race nor have you been studying all aspects of it have you?So I'm ignorant because I don't buy all the pro-Obama talking points? Or is it because I don't spend every waking moment spamming NS General?

So I'm ignorant because I don't buy all the pro-Obama talking points? Or is it because I don't spend every waking moment spamming NS General?

Nah, its because you buy all the Hillary talking points.

So I'm ignorant because I don't buy all the pro-Obama talking points? Or is it because I don't spend every waking moment spamming NS General?

In other words, you do not know jackshit about politics. Anyone who buys all of a politician's talking points is stupid. Just as it is stupid for anyone to vote based on letter next to a person's name.

Conduct some research OMGTKK and maybe you would see that if Billary is the nominee, 1) There will be an outrage among democrats and 2) there will be the same politics in D.C. for another four years.

I congratulate your wife on her common sense.
I'm sure she'll appreciate that. One other thing you need to remember is that we live in Georgia. Not the reddest of the red states, but it's still a pretty fur piece from being blue. I fully expect all the electoral votes to go to McCain in November.

i think you have some very mistaken assumptions about the level of political knowledge and engagement of the american public.

Just on this alone, Senator Obama has had extremely good PR since the '04 convention - household name? Possibly not, yet the feel good factor associated with him, especially with the young voters who've turned out in great number has been a certain factor. This probably equals the feel bad factor associated with Senator Clinton.

The same fatigue I see here against those in fervent favour of Senator Obama is also felt, in my opinion admittedly, across America. I've watched commentary starting to sway away from outright defense to a more measured response across the board.

People have thrown their reputation behind belief in Senator Obama, it's almost moving beyond a considered assessment of facts to overly biased support, that's a dangerous position to take.

If people want to see him take the nomination, which I think he deserves, they'd do well not to alienate those who've thrown their weight behind Senator Clinton. At this point, the rhetoric about this becoming divisive becomes very real - one might say that's always been the case but the difference is that, previously, it's been unfounded conjecture, interpretation of figures that were always up for debate - now we're seeing outright facts being dismissed, that's where it becomes a real problem - note: this is not really in relation to the quoted post, more overall.

Senator Clinton has a poor case but a case all the same - I simply feel that right now this all plays into the hands of the Republicans and that is a very sad thing in my opinion, not just because of personal preference but because of losing an important race through pure stupidity.

Ultimately, I just feel Senator Clinton should drop out, not because I think she's poorer to take on McCain but because the damage is becoming a real problem. I'm not sure either have a real chance right now.

Just on this alone, Senator Obama has had extremely good PR since the '04 convention - household name? Possibly not, yet the feel good factor associated with him, especially with the young voters who've turned out in great number has been a certain factor. This probably equals the feel bad factor associated with Senator Clinton.

nah man. we know, with absolute certainty, that most of the public just doesn't pay all that much attention until just before an election. we are a skewed sample of political junkies (me worse than most, since i'm actually an anarchist and here i am paying attention to the nitty gritty details of a fucking awful political party's nominating process).

even into last year more than half of people hadn't heard of him at all, or hadn't heard enough to have formed an impression of him. and those who had formed an impression weren't exactly solid in their knowledge of him.

http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm

McCain is giving a speech right now were he is pretending that he "isnt a typical republican".


LOL.

pledged delegates matter tons. not only are delegates the only metric of winning, but for each pledged delegate you are down, you have to convince that many more supers to overturn the winner of the democratic contest. and that argument is tough enough if its close. if you are down by 6% (as she is now, and that is going to get worse over the next two weeks), the argument becomes laughable.The fact remains, leaving aside the supers, Obama needs 76% of the outstanding pledged delegates to pull out a win now -- a supremely difficult task which will be complicated further if Hillary continues to win the Coal Belt (Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia). Being 300 delegates short vs. your opponents' 400+ does not mean you've won. It doesn't even presume you're going to win. It just means you're 300 delegates short. You know, Obama would be much closer to his goal (and we likely would not even be having this conversation) were he able to "close the sale" on March 4 and last night. But Ohio and Pennsylvania weren't buying it.

In other words, you do not know jackshit about politics. Anyone who buys all of a politician's talking points is stupid. Just as it is stupid for anyone to vote based on letter next to a person's name.Look, I don't need to be talked down to because I don't base all my arguments on tired conventional wisdom. I haven't been around long, but long enough to know that anything can happen in a close contest. I learned my lesson when everyone was predicting with 95% certainty that Hillary would lose New Hampshire by 10+ points. I should have learned by lesson back when the 2004 exit numbers predicting a Kerry blowout turned out to have been conjured up by voodoo, but hey, I'm a slow learner.

Conduct some research OMGTKK and maybe you would see that if Billary is the nominee, 1) There will be an outrage among democratsYou mean, more outrage than in Florida and Michigan if Obama wins without their delegates being seated? Democrats could pad their win with Florida in their column, but they can't win without Michigan.

and 2) there will be the same politics in D.C. for another four years.Pfft. I'll go out on a limb and say it will be the same regardless. A newbie can stand behind a podium and bleat about "hope" and "change" all he wants; it doesn't mean it will cure the Beltway poison. I remember when Bush was talking about how he was "a uniter, not a divider" who wanted to "change the tone in Washington." ...So much for that.

Look, I don't need to be talked down to because I don't base all my arguments on tired conventional wisdom. I haven't been around long, but long enough to know that anything can happen in a close contest.

You do realize that it will take a miracle of Biblical proportions to actually pull out a victory for Clinton right? She didn't win by 20+ points that shee needed to win. She only won by about 9 to 10 points. The delegate count is close that she really did not gain on him much at all.

I learned my lesson when everyone was predicting with 95% certainty that Hillary would lose New Hampshire by 10+ points. I should have learned by lesson back when the 2004 exit numbers predicting a Kerry blowout turned out to have been conjured up by voodoo, but hey, I'm a slow learner.

That's why one should never trust poll data 100%. Now if you look over a series of polls and average them, then you get a better approximation of just who is going to win. And in reality, no one won New Hampshire as both delegates got 9 delegates each.

You mean, more outrage than in Florida and Michigan if Obama wins without their delegates being seated? Democrats could pad their win with Florida in their column, but they can't win without Michigan.

You truly want to go with that argument because that's been debated enough. The only thing I will say is that both states violated party rules and they got punished and rightly so. Both parties punished both states, just that the Democratic Party exnayed their delegate count while the Republican Party axed half their delegates. You want to talk fair? Obama was not even on the Ballot in Michigan so how is seating them democratic?

Pfft. I'll go out on a limb and say it will be the same regardless. A newbie can stand behind a podium and bleat about "hope" and "change" all he wants; it doesn't mean it will cure the Beltway poison. I remember when Bush was talking about how he was "a uniter, not a divider" who wanted to "change the tone in Washington." ...So much for that.

And Billy boy Clinton also promised change. Guess what? He won the election of 1992 and he was virtually unknown.

The fact remains, Obama needs 76% of the outstanding delegates to pull out a win now

your number is based on 2024 - p and s dels he has already, and then dividing that by the remaining pledges left, yeah? i came out with 74%, but close enough. of course, by this method clinton needs 106% of the remaining pledged dels to pull out a win.

while it is effectively impossible for obama to win on just the remaining pledged delegates, it is literally impossible for clinton to do so.

what i want to know is what plausible scenario has the supers saying,
"obama can't beat mccain. you know who can? the person who couldn't beat obama!"
and
"you know what would be excellent for our party? demonstrating that it is an utter sham and creating an entire generation of young people who will never trust us again!"
?

No candidate can really wrap it up with the remaining states. Hillary should continue to close the popular vote gap, but probably not overcome Obama, especially without Florida and Michigan.

The real, and only, question to the superdelegates is this : Who gives the Democrats the best chance to win in November. Everything else is inevitably related to this larger question.

Problem is:



Does it seem to you that there's any pre-condition here besides her wrinkled ass being in the President's seat while a male intern is under the table working through 28-years-old cobwebs?

"ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," "

I want them to tell us who'd they'd like as Vice President.

Hillary should continue to close the popular vote gap

are the numbers actually favorable to her gaining ground? msnbc says no.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935854.aspx

are the numbers actually favorable to her gaining ground? msnbc says no.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935854.aspx

MSNBC doesn't include Puerto Rico, although the other states are more realistic projections than the pro-Hillary sites have.

MSNBC doesn't include Puerto Rico, although the other states are more realistic projections than the pro-Hillary sites have.

ah yes, puerto rico. though as i recall, pr has an awful lot of undecideds, which tends to make me think that the current poll is a name recognition poll more than anything.

of course, i don't expect the race to go on that long anyway

"ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," "

Meh, I just wanted to turn a phrase there. Ah well.

"ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," "

Which makes sense Israel is an ally of the United States.

Which makes sense Israel is an ally of the United States.

Except, of course, that Israel would have already turned Iran into the world's largest glass exporter making an attack useless.

CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM)
1,238,232 54.6%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM)
1,030,703 45.4%

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

A 9% victory for Clinton with 99.51% of the districts reporting.

CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM)
1,238,232 54.6%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM)
1,030,703 45.4%

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

A 9% victory for Clinton with 99.51% of the districts reporting.

no math allowed! its a double digit win and that's that.

no math allowed! its a double digit win and that's that.

I'm going by the state website over CNN. I feel it more accurate as the rest of Philadelphia county has yet to report.

Except, of course, that Israel would have already turned Iran into the world's largest glass exporter making an attack useless.

That made me giggle. :D

no math allowed! its a double digit win and that's that.

The media got what they want. They are making a small fortune on this. And, personally, I'm glad it continues as well. People are getting so waterlogged with the "evil" Obama stuff that it will be completely useless soon.

Now there are republican groups running adds saying that people shouldn't vote for people who associated with Obama who once sat on a board with Ayers. It's nuts.

By my figuring, if you've got tell people to vote on such tenuous associations, you must really be up a creek. They see the grassroots campaign, when it hits in November, is gonna turn Republican country upside down. They're doing anything they can to prevent Obama's machine from being turned loose in the general.

It's time, Free, let's see the list of states won by Obam with landslides. Do it, now, move.

How about a list of states Obama won by more than the percentage she just got?

It's time, Free, let's see the list of states won by Obam with landslides. Do it, now, move.

How about a list of states Obama won by more than the percentage she just got?

i'll work up a list of obama +9.5 in a minute. for now, here is the obama-landslide list

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

That's some mighty fine bragging rights you got there. And months from now when McCain is inaugurated, Obama can tell all his friends how he won the Alaska caucuses by 4,500 votes.

That's some mighty fine bragging rights you got there. And months from now when McCain is inaugurated, Obama can tell all his friends how he won the Alaska caucuses by 4,500 votes.

And in a few months when Obama is inaugerated, all of the fools who claim he's unelectable will finally shut their mouths.

i'll work up a list of obama +9.5 in a minute.

a quick glance shows that the only times obama didn't pull out 9.5 victory margin are in iowa (which was a three-way race), missouri, and connecticut. which puts him 27 for 30 in pulling a 'big win'.

conversely, just 10 out of the 15 races clinton has won have been above that line

That's some mighty fine bragging rights you got there. And months from now when McCain is inaugurated, Obama can tell all his friends how he won the Alaska caucuses by 4,500 votes.

if obama cant beat mccain then neither can clinton.

if obama cant beat mccain then neither can clinton.

Considering she can't even beat Obama in the Primary, that is indeed an accurate statement.

Considering she can't even beat Obama in the Primary, that is indeed an accurate statement.

i think that either of them would win. mccain is a very weak candidate--too old, knows nothing about the economy, is easily confused, doesnt have the respect of his party movers and shakers. but clinton has a very high negative rating and a boat load of shit that can (and would) be brought up about her and her husband.

That's some mighty fine bragging rights you got there. And months from now when McCain is inaugurated, Obama can tell all his friends how he won the Alaska caucuses by 4,500 votes.

Well, of course, Clearly, McCain is the super-candidate. I mean, he has managed to work up a tie nationally with, uh, no one to run against.

Well, of course, Clearly, McCain is the super-candidate. I mean, he has managed to work up a tie nationally with, uh, no one to run against.

Given any Republican was 13 points behind any Democrat last November, it's not so bad.

And that McCain's media presence is almost nothing compared to Obama and Clinton at this point.

And that McCain's media presence is almost nothing compared to Obama and Clinton at this point.

Lucky for him. Otherwise people might notice that his "strength" doesn't include knowing who it is that's attacking us. He's regularly claimed that Al Queda are hiding in Iran, which he's trying to fight with, while he avoids, you know, actually going after Al Queda. Yeah, good think they're not focusing on McCain.

I think it's sad that the maverick who was such a good candidate a decade ago didn't know when to call it quits in the political game.

i'll work up a list of obama +9.5 in a minute. for now, here is the obama-landslide list

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%)*
Impressive? Meh!!

I highlighted the ones that I think he would have a chance of winning in the general election. However, Hillary would also win those states, even though it might be by a reduced plurality.

Impressive? Meh!!

I highlighted the ones that I think he would have a chance of winning in the general election. However, Hillary would also win those states, even though it might be by a reduced plurality.

We're not in the general. See, we're in the primary season and she's losing. But, hey, she did get a double digit win.... triple if you could TWO digits past the decimal.

Good thing you haven't be acting like the primaries matter to the general. In the general, it won't matter who won what state in the primaries. What will matter is that Obama is still available to vote for and Hillary is watching.

Impressive? Meh!!

I highlighted the ones that I think he would have a chance of winning in the general election. However, Hillary would also win those states, even though it might be by a reduced plurality.

And yet you state that Obama "can't win states that Hillary won", such as California, New York...

Even though not only they won't go red, Obama is STILL doing better than McCain is in most battleground states. And in most of them, he's also doing better than CLINTON when she's pitted against the old, senile sod.

Shit, I'd move to Mexico.

I just watched the game. The lakers didn't really win. See, first, the game should have been decided by who make the most shots, but then Denver realized they lost that, too. Then they said that the two shots they made after traveling should count because those shots deserve to be represented even if they were against the rules. Now, they're trying to point out that clearly they're better position to win the championship even though they can't beat the Lakers.

Nuggets '08

We're not in the general. See, we're in the primary season and she's losing. But, hey, she did get a double digit win.... triple if you could TWO digits past the decimal.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

Just short of double digits Jocabia.

Good thing you haven't be acting like the primaries matter to the general. In the general, it won't matter who won what state in the primaries. What will matter is that Obama is still available to vote for and Hillary is watching.

Hear Hear.

I just watched the game. The lakers didn't really win. See, first, the game should have been decided by who make the most shots, but then Denver realized they lost that, too. Then they said that the two shots they made after traveling should count because those shots deserve to be represented even if they were against the rules. Now, they're trying to point out that clearly they're better position to win the championship even though they can't beat the Lakers.

Nuggets '08

Mmmm, satirilicious...

I just watched the game. The lakers didn't really win. See, first, the game should have been decided by who make the most shots, but then Denver realized they lost that, too. Then they said that the two shots they made after traveling should count because those shots deserve to be represented even if they were against the rules. Now, they're trying to point out that clearly they're better position to win the championship even though they can't beat the Lakers.

Nuggets '08Yeah, or how bout that last match, when the Lakers were up 100-92 in the fourth quarter, then Phil Jackson decided his team had already won and demanded the Nuggets forfeit? I haven't seen anything that presumptuous since I picked up this chick at a bar, then she decided we were already married.

Yeah, or how bout that last match, when the Lakers were up 100-92 in the fourth quarter, then Phil Jackson decided his team had already won and demanded the Nuggets forfeit? I haven't seen anything that presumptuous since I picked up this chick at a bar, then she decided we were already married.

Or perhaps the games where one team is down by 20 points with 10 seconds left and drags it out for five minutes with fouls and time-outs and some of the fans of the leading team want the other to just give it up?

Yeah, or how bout that last match, when the Lakers were up 100-92 in the fourth quarter, then Phil Jackson decided his team had already won and demanded the Nuggets forfeit? I haven't seen anything that presumptuous since I picked up this chick at a bar, then she decided we were already married.

y'see, that would make sense if Obama had ever called for Hillary to forfeit. he hasn't.

Yeah, or how bout that last match, when the Lakers were up 100-92 in the fourth quarter, then Phil Jackson decided his team had already won and demanded the Nuggets forfeit? I haven't seen anything that presumptuous since I picked up this chick at a bar, then she decided we were already married.

Who demanded she forfeit? Obama has told her to continue as long as she likes. However, it's more comparable to chess where you generally lay down your king when you realize winning is not possible.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

Just short of double digits Jocabia.



Hear Hear.

Uh, you didn't notice that I said she would have had a three digit win if you count two digits past the decimal (in other words, only one digit in front of the decimal, the nine)

Or perhaps the games where one team is down by 20 points with 10 seconds left and drags it out for five minutes with fouls and time-outs and some of the fans of the leading team want the other to just give it up?

Or at least stop attempting to injure the leading team so badly that they can't compete in the next contest. "Fouling is part of the game. I can't help it if he broke his ankle" *innocent shrug*

Or at least stop attempting to injure the leading team so badly that they can't compete in the next contest. "Fouling is part of the game. I can't help it if he broke his ankle" *innocent shrug*

especially since this ain't the championships, this is a pre-season one-on-one match between two players on the same team.

UGH!!!

Sen. Hillary Clinton is arguing that she is ahead of rival Sen. Barack Obama when it comes to the popular vote.

"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," Clinton said Wednesday, one day after her decisive win in Pennsylvania.

What a liar!

But now for the rebuttal:

Not so fast, says Obama's campaign. Clinton's count includes her wins in Michigan and Florida, but the Democratic presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in those states because they violated party rules by scheduling their contests too early.

Obama didn't even have his name on the Michigan ballot, so he received no votes from that contest.

"We think that, in the end, if we end up having won twice as many states and having the most votes, then we should be the nominee," Obama said.

This is really foolhearty of Hillary to claim this when she knows full well that Michigan and Florida didn't count.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/24/obama-picks-up-oregon-superdelegate/

And yet another superdelegate for Barack Obama and apparently, 49 supporters of Edwards is also backing him and that news broke yesterday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/24/was-pennsylvania-a-double-digit-clinton-win-or-not/#comment-955812

A very interesting topic for discussion and since we have been talking about it, I thought I provide the Political Ticker take on it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/24/was-pennsylvania-a-double-digit-clinton-win-or-not/#comment-955812

A very interesting topic for discussion and since we have been talking about it, I thought I provide the Political Ticker take on it.

2 + 2 = 5... For high values of 2.

UGH!!!



What a liar!

But now for the rebuttal:



This is really foolhearty of Hillary to claim this when she knows full well that Michigan and Florida didn't count.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

How dare you belittle Hillary's achievements! Didn't you know she miraculously managed to win the Popular Vote while coming under sniper fire?

:D

UGH!!!



What a liar!

But now for the rebuttal:



This is really foolhearty of Hillary to claim this when she knows full well that Michigan and Florida didn't count.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

And to think it was just yesterday that I was thinking of the clinton campaign as the "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" campaign.

She could maybe get away with claiming Florida, maybe, but claiming Michigan just makes me sick. Michgan's election was a true sham and to allow it would be to make the democratic primary a sham.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

"If Michigan and Florida are counted, Clinton is ahead by 100,000 votes -- 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million. Without those states, Obama has a 500,000 vote lead, 14.4 million to 13.9 million."

oh wow. not only does this require pretending that florida and michigan count and that obama got zero votes in michigan, but also it requires not counting iowa, nevada, maine, and washington.

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

if we are counting michigan, of course, we have to attribute some amount of 'uncommitted' to obama. anything greater than 5% puts him back in the lead, and according to cnn's exit poll, he would have gotten 35% if he'd been on the ballot (and she would only have gotten 46% rather than 55%).

this is just fundamentally dishonest. there ain't no other words for it - no nice words, anyways.

Another article on this popular vote thing...

Clinton's claim to be ahead also relies in part on not counting votes from the caucuses held in Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Obama won all those but Nevada. The rationale for not counting those caucuses: They weren't "one man, one vote" contests with traditionally reported vote counts.


"I won the popular vote if we include states where Obama wasnt on the ballot and where we didnt campaign because they didnt count, and as long as these 4 states here dont count either."


I like this logic. Hey guys, Im Jesus. As long as you ignore the being perfect and son of god part.

"If Michigan and Florida are counted, Clinton is ahead by 100,000 votes -- 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million. Without those states, Obama has a 500,000 vote lead, 14.4 million to 13.9 million."

oh wow. not only does this require pretending that florida and michigan count and that obama got zero votes in michigan, but also it requires not counting iowa, nevada, maine, and washington.

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

if we are counting michigan, of course, we have to attribute some amount of 'uncommitted' to obama. anything greater than 5% puts him back in the lead, and according to cnn's exit poll, he would have gotten 35% if he'd been on the ballot (and she would only have gotten 46% rather than 55%).

this is just fundamentally dishonest. there ain't no other words for it - no nice words, anyways.

You beat me to it.

so is this some sneaky new plan to make it look like team clinton is really trying hard to win, while actually signaling to the superdelegates to put them out of their misery? or do they really think that everyone is fucking retarded?

so is this some sneaky new plan to make it look like team clinton is really trying hard to win, while actually signaling to the superdelegates to put them out of their misery? or do they really think that everyone is fucking retarded?

I care about everyones votes. Really. As long as theyre not from Iowa, Nevada, Maine, or Washington.

I care about everyones votes. Really. As long as theyre not from Iowa, Nevada, Maine, or Washington.

Those weren't real votes. They were caucuses.

Those weren't real votes. They were caucuses.

Yep, and since Hillary preforms poorly in caucuses clearly they dot count and are a flawed system that should be done away with.

what drives me crazy is not hillary clinton making these stupid claims--she is just trying to win--its the news outlets pretending that it makes sense.

on the today show this morning they covered ms clinton claiming to be ahead in the popular vote--fine, no reason not to--THEN followed up with a sentence on how mr obama also CLAIMS to be the frontrunner.

gee, im sorry but he IS the frontrunner by any reasonable measure of the word.

what drives me crazy is not hillary clinton making these stupid claims--she is just trying to win

Really? Hillary is tryin to win?:p

--its the news outlets pretending that it makes sense.

Cmon, we all know teh ebil media is out to get her and is pro-Obama.

gee, im sorry but he IS the frontrunner by any reasonable measure of the word.

This.

Really? Hillary is tryin to win?:p



yes hillary is trying to win. its bill im not too sure about.

Bill's had a lot of fun with Hillary. She should divorce him, marry Obama, and run together. It will be great!

Bill's had a lot of fun with Hillary. She should divorce him, marry Obama, and run together. It will be great!

bigamy is against the law.

bigamy is against the law.

Indeed. Obama would have to divorce Michelle for this to occur.

Indeed. Obama would have to divorce Michelle for this to occur.

yes.

in a contest (for wife) between michelle obama and hillary clinton surely michelle would win.

yes.

in a contest (for wife) between michelle obama and hillary clinton surely michelle would win.

I agree entirely.

yes.

in a contest (for wife) between michelle obama and hillary clinton surely michelle would win.

Hell, at this point I'd vote Michelle for President over Hillary, even if she wasn't married to Barack.

Being a Clinton-backer myself, I'm confident. The Pennsylvania win gives US momentum. If we win Indiana and come close in North Carolina, we'll put some severe pressure on Obama.

Being a Clinton-backer myself, I'm confident. The Pennsylvania win gives US momentum. If we win Indiana and come close in North Carolina, we'll put some severe pressure on Obama.

Define close!

Being a Clinton-backer myself, I'm confident. The Pennsylvania win gives US momentum. If we win Indiana and come close in North Carolina, we'll put some severe pressure on Obama.

Obama is going to get an ACTUAL double digit win. In fact, Obama pretty much only gets double digit wins.

Define close!

Closer than he came to us in Pennsylvania. I'd say if we close to within five points then we're good, especially with all the structural advantages he has there.

Obama is going to get an ACTUAL double digit win. In fact, Obama pretty much only gets double digit wins.

He may not in Indiana but then again, that state is a toss up at this moment.

Closer than he came to us in Pennsylvania. I'd say if we close to within five points then we're good, especially with all the structural advantages he has there.

And what makes you think she'll close this to single digits?

And what makes you think she'll close this to single digits?

Determination.

Any other Democratic candidate would have been finished off by Obama's eleven-straight wins. Hillary Clinton remains standing. And it's not a Dennis Kucinich-style of standing...Pennsylvania proves that she still has political bullets left in the proverbial chamber. I am not confident that she can win North Carolina. I am, however, confident she can close on him.

And what makes you think she'll close this to single digits?

Because she has a history of coming back from being way behind in the polls and actually closing the gap?

Oh, wait, I do believe that's Obama....

=)

Now, I don't want to downplay his candidacy this time around, but Obama basically walked into the Illinois senate seat. Sure he had to get approved by the state party, but really, he never run a meaningful campaign himself (except for this one) and apparently neither have his advisers.

Determination.

Explains why she only won PA by 9 points. Her determination to win at any cost cost her that 20 point lead she had going into the brawl in PA.

Any other Democratic candidate would have been finished off by Obama's eleven-straight wins. Hillary Clinton remains standing. And it's not a Dennis Kucinich-style of standing...Pennsylvania proves that she still has political bullets left in the proverbial chamber. I am not confident that she can win North Carolina. I am, however, confident she can close on him.

We'll see.

Now, I don't want to downplay his candidacy this time around, but Obama basically walked into the Illinois senate seat. Sure he had to get approved by the state party, but really, he never run a meaningful campaign himself (except for this one) and apparently neither have his advisers.

And that is why Obama has the most delegates, states, and votes.

Because she has a history of coming back from being way behind in the polls and actually closing the gap?

Oh, wait, I do believe that's Obama....

=)

You forget the upset in New Hampshire, when she was expected to lose.

And Nevada.

And then the unexpected wins in Ohio and Texas, when she had to have both.

You forget the upset in New Hampshire, when she was expected to lose.

Nor did she win NH either.

And Nevada.

And then the unexpected wins in Ohio and Texas, when she had to have both.

Um...she actually lost Texas.

Closer than he came to us in Pennsylvania. I'd say if we close to within five points then we're good, especially with all the structural advantages he has there.

Five points? Bwahaha.

Being a Clinton-backer myself, I'm confident. The Pennsylvania win gives US momentum. If we win Indiana and come close in North Carolina, we'll put some severe pressure on Obama.
Yeah, then he'll have to hold her under 70% in the vital Montana and Puerto Rico contests....

You forget the upset in New Hampshire, when she was expected to lose.

She was actually expected to win there until Obama won in Iowa. And I wouldn't exactly call a slim majority an "upset", especially considering the fact that Obama actually picked up more delegates there than her.

And Nevada.

Polls were always close there. Obama actually closed an originally much larger gap to the point that he got more delegates there than Hillary did.

And then the unexpected wins in Ohio and Texas, when she had to have both.

Unexpected? Only in this country could it be spun that way. Both races were incredibly close, with Hillary initially having the upper hand. It was through campaigning that Obama closed the gap in both states, coming very close in the overall vote. He actually picked up more delegates than her in Texas.


You've just listed multiple states in which Obama closed a much wider gap as some sort of evidence that Hillary does it.

Of course, if we look at the contests in which Obama initially had a strong lead, guess what? He still won them by large margins - often by 20 points or more. Hillary has not proven to be good at closing those gaps.

And that is why Obama has the most delegates, states, and votes.

No, I think that's because people voted for him. I'm saying that if the big question is going to be electability, Obama doesn't really have a leg to stand on. I don't think it should be the big issue, especially because if he gets the Presidency winning elections won't have any impact on how well he runs the country. Anyway, that's all I had to say.

The delegates are not what we are aiming for at this point. The number of states does not matter. At this point, we want the popular vote....and if you count the Florida popular vote and/or the Michigan vote, then we're competitive with Obama.

No, I think that's because people voted for him. I'm saying that if the big question is going to be electability, Obama doesn't really have a leg to stand on. I don't think it should be the big issue, especially because if he gets the Presidency winning elections won't have any impact on how well he runs the country. Anyway, that's all I had to say.

If we are going to talk about electibility, Obama has won more state elections than Billary has and if Obama was not electible, then Hillary would have wrapped this up a long long time ago. Instead, she is struggling to even win the Party Nomination and is failing that.

The delegates are not what we are aiming for at this point. The number of states does not matter. At this point, we want the popular vote....and if you count the Florida popular vote and/or the Michigan vote, then we're competitive with Obama.

Except that Michigan's vote cannot count if you want to be totally fair. Obama's name was not even on the ballot. Florida's votes don't count either because their state legislature voted as one (meaning with no dissent) to move up beyond Feb. 5 which violated both political party's rules.

Are you seriously going to argue that the DNC violate their own rules by allowing this to happen?

The delegates are not what we are aiming for at this point. The number of states does not matter. At this point, we want the popular vote....and if you count the Florida popular vote and/or the Michigan vote, then we're competitive with Obama.

Which is a fairly large if, given that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

So much for democracy.

No, I think that's because people voted for him. I'm saying that if the big question is going to be electability, Obama doesn't really have a leg to stand on. I don't think it should be the big issue, especially because if he gets the Presidency winning elections won't have any impact on how well he runs the country. Anyway, that's all I had to say.

The only thing McCain would even loosely have on Obama is the tired old "Look! He be ebil moslem wit Anti-Amerikun whitey-h8ing Kristian pasta!" rhetoric which plenty of people still buy into unfortunately.

Everyone knows Hellary Clinthulu has just as many skeletons if not more than Bill. Whitewater, Monica, Sniper Fire, NAFTA, so on and so forth. Not to mention she's almost as divisive as Shrub.

Clinthulhu clenching the nomination will equal 4 More Years of Bushevism, regardless of who actually wins the election.

Now, I don't want to downplay his candidacy this time around, but Obama basically walked into the Illinois senate seat. Sure he had to get approved by the state party, but really, he never run a meaningful campaign himself (except for this one) and apparently neither have his advisers.

even assuming that was true (and it isn't as far as his chief strategists go), all that would show is that apparently experience at running campaigns isn't actually the key to running campaigns, what with the ridiculously successful campaign they've been running and all.

The delegates are not what we are aiming for at this point. The number of states does not matter. At this point, we want the popular vote....and if you count the Florida popular vote and/or the Michigan vote, then we're competitive with Obama.

Yes, and if you count the shots I made while traveling in basketball, and make the game about number of shots taken, rather than actual points, I was a star. A star I tell you.

Unfortunately, in the elections that actually didn't give a ridiculous and illegal advantage to Hillary, you know, the elections that actually happened, Obama won more votes, more states, more delegates and is considered more credible by the electorate. Obama is favored among all voters as the expected next president.

But, hey, so long as you ignore everything actually relevant to the contest Hillary is involved in, she's winning. She certainly has longer hair. Maybe we'll decide by that.

Instead, she is struggling to even win the Party Nomination and is failing that.

To be fair there is a big difference between being elected in a Democratic party primary and being elected in a general election.

The only thing McCain would even loosely have on Obama is the tired old "Look! He be ebil moslem wit Anti-Amerikun whitey-h8ing Kristian pasta!" rhetoric which plenty of people still buy into unfortunately.

Everyone knows Hellary Clinthulu has just as many skeletons if not more than Bill. Whitewater, Monica, Sniper Fire, NAFTA, so on and so forth. Not to mention she's almost as divisive as Shrub.

Clinthulhu clenching the nomination will equal 4 More Years of Bushevism, regardless of who actually wins the election.

And I think that the Obamites are fools if they think that McCain can't hurt them, can't win the election.

If I was on John McCain's campaign strategy team and I knew for sure I'd be facing Obama, I'd hammer him as a wild-eyed leftist liberal. I'd focus on my own guy's war-hero credentials, and then I'd turn one of Obama's strengths into one of his weaknesses. I'd run ads bringing up how Obama has said he'll be willing to talk to our enemies, and I'd run a punch line resembling: Barack Obama would negotiate with terrorists". I would do such a hatchet job that his glossy coating would come off in short order.

The delegates are not what we are aiming for at this point. The number of states does not matter. At this point, we want the popular vote....and if you count the Florida popular vote and/or the Michigan vote, then we're competitive with Obama.

we?

also, no, not even if we include the straw poll name-recognition contests of michigan and florida. he's up by over a hundred thousand. see, it turns out that they actually asked people who voted 'uncommitted' who they would have voted for if all the names were on the ballot. obama took the lion's share of it.

To be fair there is a big difference between being elected in a Democratic party primary and being elected in a general election.

That is why Obama is up by 1.5 points over McCain and Clinton is only up by .6 points.

And I think that the Obamites are fools if they think that McCain can't hurt them, can't win the election.

If I was on John McCain's campaign strategy team and I knew for sure I'd be facing Obama, I'd hammer him as a wild-eyed leftist liberal. I'd focus on my own guy's war-hero credentials, and then I'd turn one of Obama's strengths into one of his weaknesses. I'd run ads bringing up how Obama has said he'll be willing to talk to our enemies, and I'd run a punch line resembling: Barack Obama would negotiate with terrorists". I would do such a hatchet job that his glossy coating would come off in short order.

ah, concern trolling. does it ever work?

And I think that the Obamites are fools if they think that McCain can't hurt them, can't win the election.

If I was on John McCain's campaign strategy team and I knew for sure I'd be facing Obama, I'd hammer him as a wild-eyed leftist liberal. I'd focus on my own guy's war-hero credentials, and then I'd turn one of Obama's strengths into one of his weaknesses. I'd run ads bringing up how Obama has said he'll be willing to talk to our enemies, and I'd run a punch line resembling: Barack Obama would negotiate with terrorists". I would do such a hatchet job that his glossy coating would come off in short order.

Except that McCain is running on the nice guy ticket as well. Pretty much that's the only thing people like about him

On the terrorist thing, I'd simply point blank ask John McCain why he doesn't know who we're fighting and who is working with whom in the Middle East? How is he going to run a war if he can't keep the players straight?

That cute little smile will fade faster than cheap blue jeans on a Texas ranch. McCain is running on the war, but knows nothing about it and keeps proving it. He's admitted he doesn't understand the economy. And, frankly, even with the democratic party split, he can barely square up against Obama.

Hmmm... I wonder what will happen in Ohio when they find out he supports NAFTA (which will be in every ad the week before the election)? Indiana? Pennsylvania? Iowa? Wisconsin? Michigan?

NAFTA is going to kill him. This season, it's the economy, stupid. And everyone knows it.

Plus we have no idea who McCain or Obama will pick as their VP's right? One never knows how the polls will go then.

And I think that the Obamites are fools if they think that McCain can't hurt them, can't win the election.

If I was on John McCain's campaign strategy team and I knew for sure I'd be facing Obama, I'd hammer him as a wild-eyed leftist liberal. I'd focus on my own guy's war-hero credentials, and then I'd turn one of Obama's strengths into one of his weaknesses. I'd run ads bringing up how Obama has said he'll be willing to talk to our enemies, and I'd run a punch line resembling: Barack Obama would negotiate with terrorists". I would do such a hatchet job that his glossy coating would come off in short order.

What glossy coating? You mean you don't really think Obama is "post-partisan" and such? :rolleyes:

i don't like either of them, but if i had to pick it would be Hilary.

i would rather have an idiot in office than a bloody Muslim.

i would rather have an idiot in office than a bloody Muslim.

How exactly does one have a crazy Christian paster who hates America and yet be a Muslim? I love it when new posters dont know anything. Do some research. You'll last longer here.


Obama will crush Hillarly like a worm in North Carolina. Im betting on a blowout. There are two states, Hillary's firewall strategy wont work.

And if I remember correctly Indiana is a caucus. We know what that means...

Plus we have no idea who McCain or Obama will pick as their VP's right? One never knows how the polls will go then.

I hope Obama picks Clark or someone like him. That would be the final nail in the McCain coffin. He picks a general for VP or a war hero and it's all done.

Hmmm... I wonder what will happen in Ohio when they find out he supports NAFTA (which will be in every ad the week before the election)? Indiana? Pennsylvania? Iowa? Wisconsin? Michigan?

NAFTA is going to kill him. This season, it's the economy, stupid. And everyone knows it.

Too bad everyone doesn't know about the economy... it would be sad if Obama won there by pandering to protectionists (sorry, fair traders).

I hope Obama picks Clark or someone like him. That would be the final nail in the McCain coffin. He picks a general for VP or a war hero and it's all done.


I can agree with that. He needs to prove with his choice that he isn't looking for lapdogs.

Too bad everyone doesn't know about the economy... it would be sad if Obama won there by pandering to protectionists (sorry, fair traders).

He hasn't claimed there shouldn't be fair trade, but that it should be fair. He's weird like that. It's not fair trade when you trade with a country that doesn't have the same protections for workers as you do. It becomes a competition for who can screw the workers worse, and that's bad for everyone. Obama (and Clinton) are simply trying to even the footing for trade so it's actually fair.

I find it funn how conservatives keep saying if we just let the market go, it will be good for the economy, but we wait and wait for the economy to do well under such conditions, and *gasp* it doesn't. NAFTA hurt our workers. Our economy has suffered under it and the other "fair" efforts by neocons.

How exactly does one have a crazy Christian paster who hates America and yet be a Muslim? I love it when new posters dont know anything. Do some research. You'll last longer here.


Obama will crush Hillarly like a worm in North Carolina. Im betting on a blowout. There are two states, Hillary's firewall strategy wont work.

And if I remember correctly Indiana is a caucus. We know what that means...

You remember incorrectly. It's an open primary.

I'd say Hilary's only hope is to convince the superdelegates that Obama's unelectable, and his crazy preacher has sunk him. If Obama starts winning again in multiple states, she's dead meat. OTOH, if she has a winning streak, she might convince them to choose her.

And I think that the Obamites are fools if they think that McCain can't hurt them, can't win the election.


Excuse me. That's Obammaries, if you please.

I'd say Hilary's only hope is to convince the superdelegates that Obama's unelectable, and his crazy preacher has sunk him. If Obama starts winning again in multiple states, she's dead meat. OTOH, if she has a winning streak, she might convince them to choose her.


I'll state it right now. If she wins all the remaining contests, they should choose her. If she wins all but NC, they should choose her. But if she even ties... at all, then she's not demonstrated a problem and there's no reason not to give it to Obama who ran the better campaign on the terms he was supposed to run on, which is to get delegates in the states that were giving them.

The delegates are not what we are aiming for at this point.

You cannot get the nomination without delegates.

The number of states does not matter.

Of course not. Obama has more states and by higher margins, so neither of those things can possibly matter, right?

At this point, we want the popular vote....and if you count the Florida popular vote and/or the Michigan vote, then we're competitive with Obama.

Note that you also have to not count 4 other states to get the numbers Clinton is throwing around.

So you have to count two states in which campaigning was disallowed - one in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Then you have to refuse to count 4 other states, 3 of which Obama won by good-sized margins.

Yup, that's the kind of "democracy" Clinton wants.

I hope Obama picks Clark or someone like him. That would be the final nail in the McCain coffin. He picks a general for VP or a war hero and it's all done.

It definitely would be.

If not Clark, who else would you think would be an excellent VP choice for Obama?

You remember incorrectly. It's an open primary.

That still favors Obama, I believe. He tends to get a much larger number of independent voters.


If not Clark, who else would you think would be an excellent VP choice for Obama?

This is probably going to sound odd and I know it would never happen, but I think Colin Powell would be an excellent VP choice.

Of course, the last time we had a two-party ticket was....what.....Lincoln's second run?

It definitely would be.

If not Clark, who else would you think would be an excellent VP choice for Obama?

I like Edwards. He would be a great VP.

I'll even say this, I would definitely vote for a Gore/Obama ticket with Gore at the top. Gore would eat McCain alive and it would be fun to watch and while I'm very confident Obama will win the general, he'd be invincible after having been VP and if he sticks to his guns on what he's campaigned on.

That still favors Obama, I believe. He tends to get a much larger number of independent voters.



This is probably going to sound odd and I know it would never happen, but I think Colin Powell would be an excellent VP choice.

Of course, the last time we had a two-party ticket was....what.....Lincoln's second run?

I was actually just thinking earlier today about what a nice pairing that would be.

I like Edwards. He would be a great VP.

I'll even say this, I would definitely vote for a Gore/Obama ticket with Gore at the top. Gore would eat McCain alive and it would be fun to watch and while I'm very confident Obama will win the general, he'd be invincible after having been VP and if he sticks to his guns on what he's campaigned on.

But wouldn't that just piss people off? That their elected candidate is taking a back seat to someone who wasn't even in the election?
Or do you mean this hypothetically?

im fond of the idea of a obama/richardson pairing. bringing out the vote of the 2 biggest minorities in the country (supposing you can convince hispanics that richardson really is hispanic) could make this the biggest turnout in history.

(supposing you can convince hispanics that richardson really is hispanic)
With the beard he's sporting lately, he looks more Hispanic than he used to. Some damn consultant would probably tell him to shave it off, though.

This is probably going to sound odd and I know it would never happen, but I think Colin Powell would be an excellent VP choice.

Of course, the last time we had a two-party ticket was....what.....Lincoln's second run?
Hmm...interesting idea. It sounds kind of nice, actually, given that Colin Powell is about the only respectable person ever involved as highly as he was in the Bush administration.

I like Edwards. He would be a great VP.
Eh...I dunno...

I'll even say this, I would definitely vote for a Gore/Obama ticket with Gore at the top. Gore would eat McCain alive and it would be fun to watch and while I'm very confident Obama will win the general, he'd be invincible after having been VP and if he sticks to his guns on what he's campaigned on.
An interesting hypothetical situation, but I disagree. I think Obama would be rather damaged by taking a back seat after having campaigned so well.
im fond of the idea of a obama/richardson pairing. bringing out the vote of the 2 biggest minorities in the country (supposing you can convince hispanics that richardson really is hispanic) could make this the biggest turnout in history.
Now that's the one I keep looking at, even though I don't like some of Richardson's positions (Including his ridiculous stance on homosexual rights.)

I think he should take Stephen Colbert as his VP

With the beard he's sporting lately, he looks more Hispanic than he used to. Some damn consultant would probably tell him to shave it off, though.

the beard makes him look a bit edgy. i think he needs that.

I think he should take Stephen Colbert as his VP
No. Stephen Colbert does not belong in actual politics. He's best suited to where he is now, as a satarist, especially since he can get across numerous points without risking his career, the way he would be all the time with the kind of stuff he says.
the beard makes him look a bit edgy. i think he needs that.

That's just hilarious. Not you, but the idea that a beard is edgy.

Seriously people, a beard is a beard. I honestly don't care if a candidate has a beard or not. (Though I have to say he does look better with it.)

I don't like some of Richardson's positions (Including his ridiculous stance on homosexual rights.)
What did he say exactly?

No. Stephen Colbert does not belong in actual politics. He's best suited to where he is now, as a satarist, especially since he can get across numerous points without risking his career, the way he would be all the time with the kind of stuff he says.




Well Duh! :p It was a joke silly ass.

I actually like the Colin Powell as VP idea the best out of anyone else I can think of as his VP. Gore would be okay but Powell would seal the deal. I know people will point to his UN pro-war testimony (but he DID apologize for that) and I'm sure it doesn't hap him having been in those high level meetings regarding how to interrogate high level terrorists, but we don't know what his positions were during those meetings do we?

But wouldn't that just piss people off? That their elected candidate is taking a back seat to someone who wasn't even in the election?
Or do you mean this hypothetically?

I think the presidency this time is so important, that if Clinton and Obama both agreed that Gore leading the ticket was best for the party, that people would get behind it, and, frankly, be quite shocked how both of them could look past personal politics so deeply.

Obama began the campaign saying that he chose to run because the time in history where he was needed, where there was other candidate who could get it done other than him, was now. He said on his own personal timeline he'd have preferred to run in four or eight years. Gore wasn't running. If Gore is suddenly on the ticket, Obama can take a backseat and stick to exactly what he said. He could say that the candidate he'd always wanted to see was Gore (thus appeasing, well, the majority of the party) and that he would return to his original plan which is to gather more experience and being President when he could be most effective.

He's already said that his belief is that he would be better suited in a few years, but that he's critically needed now. Gore solves this.

Well Duh! :p It was a joke silly ass.

I actually like the Colin Powell as VP idea the best out of anyone else I can think of as his VP. Gore would be okay but Powell would seal the deal. I know people will point to his UN pro-war testimony (but he DID apologize for that) and I'm sure it doesn't hap him having been in those high level meetings regarding how to interrogate high level terrorists, but we don't know what his positions were during those meetings do we?


id like colin powell to run AS A DEMOCRAT. he must be pissed at the treatment he received from the bush administration. this would be a good way to stick it to them.

id like colin powell to run AS A DEMOCRAT. he must be pissed at the treatment he received from the bush administration. this would be a good way to stick it to them.


True but think of the greater amount of crossover votes with a mixed ticket like that? It would definitely be a way for Obama to show that he is serious about bipartisan solutions. Then while he is VP he can quit the republican party :D

What did he say exactly?

I honestly don't remember now...I just remember that it was really bad.

I honestly don't remember now...I just remember that it was really bad.

He did vote for DOMA, but now regrets doing so.

It's probably that he said he thinks homosexuality is a choice. He seemed a bit waffly on that, though, since he said he really doesn't know. And he said it doesn't matter.

He did vote for DOMA, but now regrets doing so.

It's probably that he said he thinks homosexuality is a choice. He seemed a bit waffly on that, though, since he said he really doesn't know. And he said it doesn't matter.

Yeah, that was definitely it, the choice thing.

I don't like the fact that there are no mainstream politicians in this country that are willing to defend homosexual rights. Dennis Kucinich, yeah, but he's always been considered an oddity on the national stage and is thus ignored.

It pisses me off...but it's what it is, and we'll just have to deal with it for now.

i don't like either of them, but if i had to pick it would be Hilary.

i would rather have an idiot in office than a bloody Muslim.

He's not a muslim son.

i would rather have an idiot in office than a bloody Muslim.

Too bad you didn't apply for any party's nomination then, eh?

I hope Obama picks Clark or someone like him. That would be the final nail in the McCain coffin. He picks a general for VP or a war hero and it's all done.
Aw HELL yeah.
*mega-BOW*

Hillary is challenging Obama to an unmoderated debate. I say he should take it. Thoughts?

Hillary is challenging Obama to an unmoderated debate. I say he should take it. Thoughts?

As much as I would love to say for him don't, the opportunity is there to finally deliver the KO punch to Billary's lies and overhype.

Hell yea he should take it.

As much as I would love to say for him don't, the opportunity is there to finally deliver the KO punch to Billary's lies and overhype.

Hell yea he should take it.

I just wonder what they're going to try to do. He's pretty clearly better at debate than her, so I'm thinking she must be utterly convinced he'll say no and that it will look like he's hiding.

I just wonder what they're going to try to do. He's pretty clearly better at debate than her, so I'm thinking she must be utterly convinced he'll say no and that it will look like he's hiding.

If he says yes then she is screwed. She is most definitely desparate.

You remember incorrectly. It's an open primary.

Fair enough.

This (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/john-edwardss-supporters-are-flocking-to-sen.-obama-2008-04-24.html) creates an interesting question-
Donors, activists and members of Congress who backed former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) are flocking to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
...
Since Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, Obama’s campaign has received contributions of $200 or more from 1,089 donors who had supported Edwards, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.

Only 393 Edwards donors have given to Clinton since the primary became a two-candidate race. Since Edwards withdrew on Jan. 30, Obama has raised nearly $1 million from Edwards donors, compared to the $427,000 that has flowed to Clinton.

If the supporters are overwhelmingly moving to one candidate, isn't that almost better than an endorsement because it actually is the desired effect? Plus, you know, Carvalle doesn't get to call you names...

Also, with just nine contests to go, Clinton finally catches on... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120907504315142995.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox)

Sen. Hillary Clinton is widely expected to lose North Carolina's Democratic presidential primary on May 6, but that isn't stopping her campaign from spending millions of dollars on advertising and holding rallies in dozens of communities throughout the state.

Sen. Clinton wants to avoid the kind of blowout loss to Sen. Barack Obama she suffered in South Carolina in January. She is trying to demonstrate the breadth of her support to Democratic elected officials and other superdelegates who will sway the decision on the party's nomination.
...
Given Sen. Obama's double-digit lead in recent polls, many observers expected the Clinton campaign to concede North Carolina and pour its limited resources into tightly contested Indiana, which offers 72 delegates and also votes May 6. Instead, the campaign has opened roughly 20 offices around North Carolina and is expanding its staff of more than 50 paid employees. A $10 million cash infusion in the 24 hours after Sen. Clinton's Pennsylvania victory is helping.

Now, the curious thing is, can she close the gap the way Obama did in Pennsylvania? He has roughly the lead that Clinton had in Pennsylvania, can she bring it in under 10? If she loses by more I think that says something. I think Obama is trying, reasonably enough, to win both states by whatever margin. But it would be interesting to see him open that gap in NC and add it to the list of states won by more than 20%.

How is an unmoderated debate supposed to work? And I don't think that Obama is as invincible in debates and don't think he's likely to agree to another one before NC or Indiana. I don't think it will hurt him that much either.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/27/nevada-gops-state-convention-shut-down-early/

HAHA!! Maybe Ron Paul supporters aren't as dumb as people think they are.

RENO, Nevada (AP) — Outmaneuvered by raucous Ron Paul supporters, Nevada Republican Party leaders abruptly shut down their state convention and now must resume the event to complete a list of 31 delegates to the GOP national convention.

Outnumbered supporters of expected Republican presidential nominee John McCain faced off Saturday against well-organized Paul supporters. A large share of the more than 1,300 state convention delegates enabled Paul supporters to get a rule change positioning them for more national convention delegate slots than expected.

Give them credit. They do not know when to quit as this shows. What will be their next move? Who knows but I have to give them credit for this. I did not think they had it in them and apparently, neither did Nevada.

I still don't particularly like Wright, but I liked his speach, in general.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/27/nevada-gops-state-convention-shut-down-early/

HAHA!! Maybe Ron Paul supporters aren't as dumb as people think they are.



Give them credit. They do not know when to quit as this shows. What will be their next move? Who knows but I have to give them credit for this. I did not think they had it in them and apparently, neither did Nevada.


Whats more impressive is that such a large numbr of Ron Paul supporters left their basement computers...

Whats more impressive is that such a large numbr of Ron Paul supporters left their basement computers...

I agree with that. I really enjoyed reading the article.

I still don't particularly like Wright, but I liked his speach, in general.
I thought his words sounded reasonable, and will probably look OK on a transcript, but most people will only hear the TONE of his VOICE, delivering EVERYTHING in a SHOUT like he's PISSED OFF, or else DOESN'T have a MICROPHONE, or he's PISSED OFF because WHITEY won't ALLOW him to have a MICROPHONE...

I thought his words sounded reasonable, and will probably look OK on a transcript, but most people will only hear the TONE of his VOICE, delivering EVERYTHING in a SHOUT like he's PISSED OFF, or else DOESN'T have a MICROPHONE, or he's PISSED OFF because WHITEY won't ALLOW him to have a MICROPHONE...

He spoke to that, too. If they attack that, they'll be ensuring Obama gets 100% of the black vote. He's automatically against whitey because he's passionate. He commented how where he comes from it's expected to sound like that. And, since I'm from around there and went to church on the south side, he's right. It was like that.

How is an unmoderated debate supposed to work? And I don't think that Obama is as invincible in debates and don't think he's likely to agree to another one before NC or Indiana. I don't think it will hurt him that much either.

That's one thing that bothers me about him; Clinton is a better debater almost all the time. But I don't think people consider debates as much as they do campaign speeches or even ads. I see them more as a way to learn what the next president plans to do, not as a way to decide who to pick.

He spoke to that, too. If they attack that, they'll be ensuring Obama gets 100% of the black vote.
And 10% of the white vote?
He's automatically against whitey because he's passionate. He commented how where he comes from it's expected to sound like that. And, since I'm from around there and went to church on the south side, he's right. It was like that.
You don't have to tell me, I'm from Detroit and am used to it also (as anti-Christian as I come across sometimes, I've been known to go to a mixed-race Pentecostal church on Easter to get properly pumped up with HALLELUJAH! PRAISE JESUS!). It is not going to play in Peoria, however. I'm afraid that a couple of the angrier-sounding clips are going to be on continuous loop on Fox News, for a while now, and again in the fall.

And 10% of the white vote?

Someone's been listening to the functionally retarded pundits. Ohio isn't going to suddenly go, well, we'll support the candidate for NAFTA, because the other guy has a preacher who gets excited.


You don't have to tell me, I'm from Detroit and am used to it also (as anti-Christian as I come across sometimes, I've been known to go to a mixed-race Pentecostal church on Easter to get properly pumped up with HALLELUJAH! PRAISE JESUS!). It is not going to play in Peoria, however. I'm afraid that a couple of the angrier-sounding clips are going to be on continuous loop on Fox News, for a while now, and again in the fall.

I hope they play the hell out of it. People are tired of candidates that try to hide the issues. McCain is gonna get smoked. 25% of the people who voted in the PA primary voted against him. That's people who took the time to show up, didn't care enough to choose the dem candidate, and voted against him. Think about that.

That's one thing that bothers me about him; Clinton is a better debater almost all the time. But I don't think people consider debates as much as they do campaign speeches or even ads. I see them more as a way to learn what the next president plans to do, not as a way to decide who to pick.

Better debater? In what world?

The bitch has finally lost it (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/).

http://ravenresist.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/feb5-2008.jpg

The bitch has finally lost it (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/).

I see they also didn't continue with what she said after that which puts the line into context.

I see they also didn't continue with what she said after that which puts the line into context.

Well...? (I really don't know and am lazy...)

Well...? (I really don't know and am lazy...)

It was debated here for a brief bit.

Ok,

McCain, Obama, and Clinton are in a boat with no life preserver when suddenly the boat tips over. Who gets saved?



Answer: AMERICA

How is an unmoderated debate supposed to work?

i think the idea is like competitive speechifying. candidate 1 talks for x minutes, candidate 2 talks for x+y minutes, and then candidate 1 gets y more minutes.

"ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," "

This wouldn't be funny except that CH ran around saying "Oh noes, Obama gonna bomb and invade Pakistan..."

This wouldn't be funny except that CH ran around saying "Oh noes, Obama gonna bomb and invade Pakistan..."

Nononono, that's not a contradiction. You're just ganging up on CH; it's not fair!

Senator Clinton is the only person who can beat McCain. She's the Holy Savior of America and will lead us into a Golden Age of Prosperity that will last for a millennium. Obama is a m0zl3m elitist who will destroy America.

In my opinion. (Hah!)

Nononono, that's not a contradiction. You're just ganging up on CH; it's not fair!

Senator Clinton is the only person who can beat McCain. She's the Holy Savior of America and will lead us into a Golden Age of Prosperity that will last for a millennium. Obama is a m0zl3m elitist who will destroy America.

In my opinion. (Hah!)

LOL!!!

As stated before, I hate it when people take things out of context!

I love this post though. Made my day.

That's one thing that bothers me about him; Clinton is a better debater almost all the time.

Do we watch the same debates?


Do we live in the same universe?

Being a Clinton-backer myself, I'm confident. The Pennsylvania win gives US momentum. If we win Indiana and come close in North Carolina, we'll put some severe pressure on Obama.

I was wondering where you disappeared to. Clinton not only has to win Indiana but must do so by 10 or more. She's likely to lose NC by more than 10 so she's going to have trouble there. The RCP average has her down by 15+. Also, RCP shows an avg. for Obama +3 as of Friday. If Hillary wins IN it will be by a sliver. she'll def lose in NC so...

There are 218 delegates between IN and NC, and Obama will win most of them due to his large lead in NC, and my projected victory or hairsplitter in IN. Anyway you slice it she's down in all counts, and needs to post 15 + in every competition from here on out to have a remote shot. Breaking News!!!! More superdelegates breaking for Obama.

I was wondering where you disappeared to. Clinton not only has to win Indiana but must do so by 10 or more. She's likely to lose NC by more than 10 so she's going to have trouble there. The RCP average has her down by 15+. Also, RCP shows an avg. for Obama +3 as of Friday. If Hillary wins IN it will be by a sliver. she'll def lose in NC so...

There are 218 delegates between IN and NC, and Obama will win most of them due to his large lead in NC, and my projected victory or hairsplitter in IN. Anyway you slice it she's down in all counts, and needs to post 15 + in every competition from here on out to have a remote shot. Breaking News!!!! More superdelegates breaking for Obama.

Actually its 20+ points in all remaining contests Liuzzo.

You forget the upset in New Hampshire, when she was expected to lose.

And Nevada.

And then the unexpected wins in Ohio and Texas, when she had to have both.

1. Hillary was up by a margin of 7-18 there (NH) a week before the election. the only reason the polls switched the other way was an over-reaction to Obama's shocking win in Iowa. Speaking of which, who the hell thought Obama would win Iowa? Now that was unexpected.

2. There was nothing unexpected about her wins in Texas or Ohio. As a matter of fact, by delegate count she didn't even win Texas. The Texas two step gave him more delegates. This was all part of her "firewall" strategy. she chose to pretty much ignore many others states to focus only on two. This would cost her in the general if she were to be nominated. Obama's 50 state strategy is working for him and building grass roots organizations to make the general much better.

The bitch has finally lost it (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/).

oh god she repeated it.

i was hoping that she said it in the heat of the debate but didnt really mean that we would nuke iran if it messed with israel. or ANY OTHER MIDEASTERN COUNTRY!

i know she feels she needs to sound tough because she is a woman but that is just crazy talk. and a damned good reason not to make her president.

Indiana Voter ID Law ruled constitutional (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/28/indiana-voter-id-law-ruled-constitutional/)

The people in Indiana better have their IDs if they plan on voting May 6. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional.

To me, I applaud this decision in an effort to stem voter fraud.

To me, I applaud this decision in an effort to stem voter fraud.

a non-solution to a non-problem. the way vote fraud works now is not the way it did in gangs of new york. all this does is make it that much more of a hassle for people to vote for no good reason.

a non-solution to a non-problem

yeah its been a big talking point with the republicans for years but when studies are done they find that it is not a problem at all.

a non-solution to a non-problem. the way vote fraud works now is not the way it did in gangs of new york. all this does is make it that much more of a hassle for people to vote for no good reason.

How is it a hassel to show someone your drivers liscense?

How is it a hassel to show someone your drivers liscense?

not too much if you have one.

How is it a hassel to show someone your drivers liscense?

Or a state ID.

Answer: None at all unless you do not have one.

How is it a hassel to show someone your drivers liscense?

not everyone has one. and those that don't have one now need to both find the cash and find a ride to somewhere to get a state id. added cost/added hassle for some people, utterly unnecessary for everyone.

oh yeah, and if it costs anything at all to get a necessary id that has no other necessary function for someone but to allow them to vote, how is that not a poll tax?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/index.html

Story Highlights
Supreme Court supports Indiana's voter ID requirements in 6-3 vote

Majority says ID law can help stop fraud with "reasonable" requirements

Indiana voters without photo ID can get one for free

Foes say law favors Republicans by keeping away voters who favor Democrats

Free photo id opportunity? Now no one can claim they couldn't vote if they didn't have a photo id. They can get one for free.

I thought it was law everywhere to show your ID before you voted? I was pretty sure I had to show my ID before voting last time here in Nevada. How do they decide if you have the right to vote or not if you don't have an ID?

In PA, I just showed them my voter registration card. I thought they were going to ask for my photo ID as it was the first time I voted at this place but they looked at my card and looked at their list and handed me my ballot. The same with my fiance.

Free photo id opportunity? Now no one can claim they couldn't vote if they didn't have a photo id. They can get one for free.

indiana is unusual in that regard then. most everywhere has a fee to get a state id card.

but in any case, the only sort of fraud this could possibly address doesn't happen to any significant extent. it just isn't worthwhile, because it takes way way way too much work for getting just a single extra vote. and it would easily be noticed as you would have to be voting for some other registered voter and hoping they don't also show up to vote. there is no problem here to not be solved by this law.

there are, however, fully 13% of registered voters in indiana (http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fraud_of_voter_id_laws) who currently lack the necessary documentation to vote. so, solves nothing and instantaneously disenfranchises 13% of the voters, who now must go jump through unnecessary extra bureaucratic hoops.

I thought it was law everywhere to show your ID before you voted? I was pretty sure I had to show my ID before voting last time here in Nevada. How do they decide if you have the right to vote or not if you don't have an ID?

most places have a list of registered voters, linked up with addresses, and you have to just show who you are through any of a number of acceptable things.
if you are doing wisconsonian same-day registration, you have to provide some sort of evidence (like a utility bill or whatever) that you live in the precinct.
idaho allowed me to use my student id.

most places have a list of registered voters, linked up with addresses, and you have to just show who you are through any of a number of acceptable things.
if you are doing wisconsonian same-day registration, you have to provide some sort of evidence (like a utility bill or whatever) that you live in the precinct.
idaho allowed me to use my student id.

i loved that same day registration thing when i lived in wisconsin. its the easiest way to vote. no need to remember to register in time.

in new mexico you get to vote no matter what. if you have showed up at the wrong precinct or have been dropped off the roles or if its some strange clerical error, they give you a provisional ballot and sort out your right to vote later. you are never turned away voteless. (of course your vote is probably invalid but you still get to vote, just in case it isnt) none of that florida "you tried to vote at the wrong precinct so we are charging you with a crime" bullshit.

Oh maybe I just used my ID because it was the easiest way to prove who I was then.

I'm kind of surprised that it isn't a law in the US these days to have a state ID just to be in public.

i loved that same day registration thing when i lived in wisconsin. its the easiest way to vote. no need to remember to register in time.

fuck yeah, convenient as hell. especially when you are a college student and therefore moving every year or two.

To be fair there is a big difference between being elected in a Democratic party primary and being elected in a general election.

You are correct there. I think what Joc is trying to get across is that you wouldn't want to take the loser of one contest and throw them in with a winner from another. You wouldn't want the guy who lost the qualifying fight going for the title (Do you watch boxing?). There's a competetition just like there is in boxing. You fight your way to the top in hope of getting a title shot. If you get that shot and lose then you lose. They don't usually allow you to get beat by the number 2-5 contenders and then face the champ. The same holds true here.

Oh maybe I just used my ID because it was the easiest way to prove who I was then.

yeah, driver's licenses are easy if you have one (or if it is for the right address, let alone the right state...)

And I think that the Obamites are fools if they think that McCain can't hurt them, can't win the election.

If I was on John McCain's campaign strategy team and I knew for sure I'd be facing Obama, I'd hammer him as a wild-eyed leftist liberal. I'd focus on my own guy's war-hero credentials, and then I'd turn one of Obama's strengths into one of his weaknesses. I'd run ads bringing up how Obama has said he'll be willing to talk to our enemies, and I'd run a punch line resembling: Barack Obama would negotiate with terrorists". I would do such a hatchet job that his glossy coating would come off in short order.

In other words, you'd do what the Hillary campaign would do? The rhetoric always makes me laugh. "The gloves are off... the shine is starting to come off..." All this media hype and fear nonsense is just BS.

How exactly does one have a crazy Christian paster who hates America and yet be a Muslim? I love it when new posters dont know anything. Do some research. You'll last longer here.


Obama will crush Hillarly like a worm in North Carolina. Im betting on a blowout. There are two states, Hillary's firewall strategy wont work.

And if I remember correctly Indiana is a caucus. We know what that means...

Don't feed the flaimbaiting trolls. It's probably someone's puppet just here to piss you off.

In other words, you'd do what the Hillary campaign would do? The rhetoric always makes me laugh. "The gloves are off... the shine is starting to come off..." All this media hype and fear nonsense is just BS.

Well said Liuzzo.

I hope Obama picks Clark or someone like him. That would be the final nail in the McCain coffin. He picks a general for VP or a war hero and it's all done.

Yeah, I supported Wes Clark in 2004. The only disappointment is that he supports Hillary. I think Wes would make a great CinC or his vp.

I just wonder what they're going to try to do. He's pretty clearly better at debate than her, so I'm thinking she must be utterly convinced he'll say no and that it will look like he's hiding.

I think he'd kill her in an unmoderated debate because she couldn't pull her talk over you crap. I just don't think it should come before IN and NC. He needs the time now to actually attend to the constituency. After all, they are the people who vote right?

I see they also didn't continue with what she said after that which puts the line into context.

I don't care. Anyone who talks about "totally obliterating" a country should never be elected. And why should we "totally obliterate" Iran for attacking Israel? Israel is not the U.S.

I don't care. Anyone who talks about "totally obliterating" a country should never be elected. And why should we "totally obliterate" Iran for attacking Israel? Israel is not the U.S.

You do realize the question asked was what would she do if Iran attacked Israel with Nuclear weapons. Hence, her answer. And in answer, Israel is a fucking ally. Of course we'll respond if they were attacked with any kind of weapon.

You do realize the question asked was what would she do if Iran attacked Israel with Nuclear weapons. Hence, her answer. And in answer, Israel is a fucking ally. Of course we'll respond if they were attacked with any kind of weapon.


Iran couldn't get a nuke off the ground.

Iran couldn't get a nuke off the ground.

And you know this how?

And you know this how?

Well, that report that came out earlier this year saying that they havent had a nuclear program since, like 2003.

Ron Paul is at it again:

CNN)— Texas Congressman Ron Paul said Monday his revolution is still alive, and he will not be shut out of the presidential race by the Republican Party.

“We’re trying to say we have a right to argue our case that Republicans ought to stand for something,” Paul told CNN Monday morning. Adding, the need for change is vital, but all three candidates, including John McCain, represent a continuation of the same policy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/28/ron-paul-the-revolution-lives-on/

Seems like the Republican Race has gotten alot more interesting. Considering this:

Paul, who never officially dropped out of the Republican presidential race, said he continues to gain support from delegates. “What’s the sense of having a convention if everything is decided?” He did not give any details as to who he might be referring to, or where this new support was coming from.

Well, that report that came out earlier this year saying that they havent had a nuclear program since, like 2003.

I know and I agree with the report but that's not exactly the point under discussion.