NationStates Jolt Archive

MODEDIT: Okay, this is the second official thread on the Democrat nomination. Poll will be up again soon.

The locked thread that was becoming unwieldy is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554117).

Three topics were live when I locked it:


Obama and Rev Wright

Obama campaign and rebuilding Democrat party organisation

Clinton's remarks on Iran.

Regulars will notice that I have left out a long discussion that seems to me to summarise as "my source is better than your source". I recognise that posters should provide sources for some of their remarks; I recognise that faulty sources or lack of sources should be challenged; but too many sources smother the topic.

I would most strongly urge that posters dedicate more time to discussing the campaign and less time to discussing how fellow posters debate.

I have included Jocabia's post on the Iran angle because that was the shortest summary I could find. Feel free to attribute this to OMGMODBIAS!

I have included several other posts that seem to me to encapsulate the Wright and Democrats-rebuilding arguments.

I have included UnitedStatesOfAmerica's link to the wrestling video because it's insane.

So, take it awaaaaay USA:

-- Ardchoille, NS forum moderator.

................................................................

Hillary Rodham Clinton versus Barak Hussien Obama

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/raw/2008/april22-28/6916030?zone=raw_videos

courtesy of the wwe

Did you guys really think either of your candidates could have withstood the Samoan Bulldozer???


LOL

Man, we get you a little ribbon to twirl around and you can bring Canada the gold in rhythmic gymnastics, there...

As if it's new. When Obama says he'll make specific and exact strikes against an enemy that attacked us, he's Bush III, but when Hillary says she'll NUKE a country that's not attacked us and that she knows not to have a nuke (yet), she's being perfectly reasonable.

It's not hard to see which one of them is following a path that Bush would agree with. It ain't Obama.

Ugh, I'm so tired of the news.

"Obama has to fight back. He has to do something about Wright. He has to show he's got some strength.

....

This is just one voice. We must not get sucked in."

That's the same person speaking. So, apparently, Obama must get sucked into this rather obviously ludicrous "issue" but it would be silly for the news that CANNOT stop talking about Wright and how Obama MUST talk about him to get sucked in.

How does that make any sense? Wright is a character and I get why they're putting him all over the news, but, in what way, is Obama needing to talk about Wright? Obama said he disagrees. He said he said that the most agregious of the comments were inappropriate and condemnable. What else is he supposed to say? Should he call him a poopie-head?

"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 sparked the debate, but several times throughtout, it's been mentioned that we're talking about the ABC interview.

I find it hilarious that only AFTER claiming I was misrepresenting her statements and AFTER accusing me of various other things do you finally realize that you're not even aware of what we're talking about.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/

Incidentally, it was Corny who defended her at this point. See, some debaters, educate themselves on the discussion and THEN choose a side. Apparently, you prefer to jump in, act like you have a clue, and then, finally, when your argument is unsustainable, make a comment about how I made up the quote we were talking about all along and prove you don't have the first clue what you're debating.

In order to make a point, she gave the impression she was willing to kill every civilian in Iran. That's what happens when you obliterate a country. And she certainly said she was willing to do that if they used a nuke on Isreal, which she explicitly said they might consider in the next ten years.

This (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942916625251325.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox) is something I've been on about for a bit now, and it looks like it has traction-
Sen. Obama has taken the lead among elected officials
...
Among elected officials, Sen. Obama leads in endorsements from governors and senators. He is behind among House members by one, but both camps expect him to pull ahead unless he does badly in next Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries. If he doesn't stumble, enough elected Democrats are expected to back Sen. Obama after the last primaries June 3 to give him the delegate majority needed for nomination.

And why would they do this?
The reasons say a lot about these superdelegates' calculations for the November elections -- the presidential one, or their own.
...
The elected are the party's 28 governors, 234 House members, 49 senators and assorted big-city mayors and state officeholders. Democrats in both camps say that for many, these superdelegates' decisions to endorse someone -- or stay uncommitted -- reflect their answer to the question: What is best for my political future?
...
Many of them see Sen. Obama as more electable than Sen. Clinton. But even those who don't have been impressed by his grass-roots organizing and fund raising and the legions of new voters he has attracted, particularly younger and African-American voters.
...
A Democratic strategist to congressional candidates cites Sen. Clinton's high negative ratings in opinion polls. Politicians "all think Obama will stimulate African-American turnout, and they all know there's no way she gets independents or Republicans," says the strategist, who is unaligned in the presidential race.
...
[Obama's] campaign also just announced a 50-state voter mobilization. That reflects another pitch to nonelected party officials: That Sen. Obama would work to build the party even in Republican "red" states, and has the money to do it, while Sen. Clinton focuses only on Democratic "blue" states and battlegrounds such as Ohio.

Interviews with party officials suggest this appeal has effectively exploited lingering resentments that the DNC, under President Clinton, abandoned the red states. "Obama has made it absolutely clear he's committed to the 50-state strategy, and the Clintons obviously aren't," says Nebraska party chairman Steve Achepohl, who endorsed Sen. Obama last week. "That's a major factor for all the party people in smaller states."
So where does Clinton's lead come from?
When the year began, about 200 of the superdelegates had taken sides, most for Sen. Clinton. Her campaign, including Mr. Clinton, had quickly signed up Clinton-administration veterans, others on the DNC and elected officials in Arkansas and New York, so that she initially led Sen. Obama by more than 100.

But the Obama campaign correctly figured that she had gotten the easy pickings and that the rest were up for grabs. Once he began winning more states than she did, her endorsements slowed to a trickle, and her lead eroded to less than two dozen now.

This goes to what I've been saying, that even in states he's not likely to win outright, his presence and infrastructure will help the candidates down ballot and start to build a party that can one day turn the state blue. That's how you build a party, not by plus minusing an election in a game you've already lost twice to Bush of all people...

This goes to what I've been saying, that even in states he's not likely to win outright, his presence and infrastructure will help the candidates down ballot and start to build a party that can one day turn the state blue. That's how you build a party, not by plus minusing an election in a game you've already lost twice to Bush of all people...

which again is one of the things i find most interesting about the obama campaign. it seems to take a real interest in strategy and securing gains in the future. it acts like a legit political party/movement, rather than the joke that dems have been since they scared off the racist fucktards.

speaking of which, hey, did you guys see how map-changing he is actually looking in the latest polls? almost nothing on his map is really playing defense of the kerry states, but he is instead within 1% in texas and new mexico, 3% in south fucking carolina, tied in north carolina and indiana, getting at least one of nebraska's ec votes, ahead in colorado and iowa. clinton, instead eeks out a win using the exact same old set of barely democratic 'swing states'

in what way, is Obama needing to talk about Wright? Obama said he disagrees. He said he said that the most agregious of the comments were inappropriate and condemnable. What else is he supposed to say? Should he call him a poopie-head?
He should call him a troll-brigade cheerleader!

Fun conspirecy theory for anyone who cares.

But now, it turns out, we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at....

who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.

But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Their supporter, Reynolds, helps arrange a speech by the outspoken and egocentric Wright which receives blanket national coverage to the disadvantage of Clinton's opponent. As Louis writes: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted."




http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/wrightsetup.html



Meh. Wouldnt put it past the Clintons. But Im not gonna start wearing the tinfoil just yet.

Wow, Wright really was looking to bring Obama down for what he had said against Wrights comments. It must have really cut deeply when he insinuated that Wrights every statement isn't straight from the mouth of the Lord.

I think Obama is doing and saying the right things though.

I think this could be a perfect opportunity to really put distance between them by challenging Wright to a public debate. It would get huge media attention. Obama could tear into his statements and make him look like a fool because the general public doesn't just take Wright at his word as Wright believes his congregation did.

Wow, Wright really was looking to bring Obama down for what he had said against Wrights comments. It must have really cut deeply when he insinuated that Wrights every statement isn't straight from the mouth of the Lord.

I think Obama is doing and saying the right things though.

I think this could be a perfect opportunity to really put distance between them by challenging Wright to a public debate. It would get huge media attention. Obama could tear into his statements and make him look like a fool because the general public doesn't just take Wright at his word as Wright believes his congregation did.

Not tear into him. That's not his way. However he could very easily just challenge some of the notions.

No, I meant as in shedding light on the silliness, not angrily attack him, but rather question Wrights tin foil hat ideas. I'd ultimately like to see him get Wright to see his side of things and agree with him that what he is saying is racially divisive.

*bump so people know it's here (I didn't)*

He never listens (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13655450&postcount=11) to me! *sobs*

I'm confused. Confused and sleepy.

He never listens (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13655450&postcount=11) to me! *sobs*

You edited with that information a minute AFTER I bumped this (and thus two minutes after I found the thread. So there. :p

>_>

<_<

I don't suppose you'd believe it was Jolt?

Anyway, the poll's back. The votes at the time I switched it were: Clinton, 18; Obama, 120; Mexico, 25; other, 20.

Actually, I supplied several. But then you also claimed I refused to supply a direct quote.
You supplied several links? That is bullshit.

And how honest is your claim that I didn't have the courtesy to supply a link?
Ummm you posted that 3 hours ago. I was asking you long before then for your source.

Edit: it was 3 hours ago when I originally tried to post this before the Mod-lock.

Now, if you can provide me a direct quote where she claims that "she'll destroy every civilian in the country to make a point", then I will gladly retract my claim.

Maybe you did? Source please.
You took a long time to deliver what in essence was a partial quote of the interview. I guess that is the problem, and perhaps why you took her out of context.

I love when you play this little game, because you always lose. So. My turn...
See that is your problem. You think it is a game and the rules of the game are to state half truths and if anyone challenges you on them, you get to talk down to them and call them dishonest, or ignorant, or a hypocrite, or that they are silly.

You lost....take it in stride. :D

Note: I was posting this when the thread got locked. :(

Oy CH. You just left yourself open for more of a spanking.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/30/rep-hill-backing-obama/

Now this is freaking HILLARY-ous

(CNN) – Barack Obama's campaign announced Wednesday Indiana Rep. Baron Hill has endorsed the Illinois senator — the fourth new superdelegate the campaign has announced in the last 24 hours.

What makes it hilarious? This under the picture:

Hill, who introduced Clinton at a rally last Friday, said Wednesday he is backing Obama.

He introduces Hillary and then comes out in support of Barack Obama.

Now that's funny!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/30/rep-hill-backing-obama/#comment-984887

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9976.html

Rep Capps of California is coming out in favor of Obama. She has had long ties with the Clinton Family.

Within 24 hours, Obama has racked up 4 superdelegates to 3 for Billary.

You supplied several links? That is bullshit.

Ummm you posted that 3 hours ago. I was asking you long before then for your source.

Edit: it was 3 hours ago when I originally tried to post this before the Mod-lock.

Several of the links were in the thread before you even replied. I quoted one of those posts for you more than once, in addition to offering my own link AFTER you replied. So you're blaming me because you weren't paying attention.

I also referenced the source of my quote. You fail to realize that this conversation lasted several days and throughout several people, including myself, referenced various news articles talking about the interview. Your blog that referenced the quote is just another of those links. It didn't provide anything that hadn't been supplied repeatedly in the thread.


You took a long time to deliver what in essence was a partial quote of the interview. I guess that is the problem, and perhaps why you took her out of context.

A long time? I gave it to you almost as soon as I realized that you didn't actually know what we were talking in the conversation you jumped into. I gave it to you more than 24 hours before you claimed I "refused to supply a direct quote" repeatedly. This is utterly dishonest and isn't fooling one person.

See that is your problem. You think it is a game and the rules of the game are to state half truths and if anyone challenges you on them, you get to talk down to them and call them dishonest, or ignorant, or a hypocrite, or that they are silly.

No, I think this is a debate where evidence and logic rules. You think that if you have a "gut feeling" and "opinion" your statements are equal to evidence and logic. They aren't.

Lying about whether I supplied a direct quote, a link and additional evidence is why you are dishonest, a hypocrite and silly. The lack of ability to analyze evidence or apply logic is why you lost, and the other things are simply evidence of the failure to analyze the evidence or apply logic, evidence of your fallacies and attempts to avoid debate rather than confront it.

That you are lying when you say I "took a long time" to supply a "partial quote" is the only rational reply. Two seperate issues. When you lie and I can prove it, I'm going to point it out. That you are being dishonest in a claim is relevant to the credibility of said claim, particularly when you're trying to get us to accept your "gut feeling".

You lost....take it in stride. :D

Note: I was posting this when the thread got locked. :(

Amusing. So Clinton when you said "obliterate Iran" didn't say anything that gives the impression she might, you know, "obliterate Iran". Hmmm... someone's logic detector is broken and it ain't me.

Let me paraphrase this post - "I accused you of not supplying a quote that you supplied four times and of not supplying a source that you supplied several times and of not supplying the links that are peppered throughout the thread. None of these are true, but you lose cuz I said so."

Oy CH. You just left yourself open for more of a spanking.

He'll assuredly accuse you of cheerleading. What he doesn't realize is that in this case you were defending Hillary and tend to agree with him. Amusingly, after all of his accusations about how you cannot debate, you made a much better case for her than he did. His case consisted of "she really meant this." And then "nuh-uh, she didn't say that." And then "oh, wait, she did say that but she wasn't REALLY saying that."

The fact is a presidential candidate used the words "obliterate Iran". She made the specific admission that it was a terrible thing to say and made it very clear that they better understand that if she is President her response would be terrible if Iran nuked Isreal. One can defend this claim, but the fact is she made it.

Unlike her, Obama said that while he would have a swift and fierce reaction were this to occur, he actually qualified his statement by pointing out the question is ludicrous because they have no nukes and stopping that acquisition should be the goal. While Canuck wants to read that into her response, Obama actually ensured no one would mistakingly get the impression that this could happen.

apparently its a busy day in superdelegate land. and clinton's lead there (her only lead) has slipped below 20.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/superdelegate-slugfest.html

Jocabia, CanuckHeaven, look:

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13656634&postcount=21) post (Jocabia): 407 words. Words not about CanuckHeaven: 20.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13656680&postcount=22) post (Jocabia): 201 words. Words not about CanuckHeaven: 125.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13656461&postcount=17) post (CanuckHeaven): 137 words. Words not about Jocabia: 0.

I haven't counted your sigs and I haven't counted your quotes. I also haven't counted anyone else's comments on your dispute.

I think you have established in this thread, as you did at length in the earlier one, that you disagree on debating methodology, debating style and definition of "relevant" for quotes, among other subjects.

I do not think you need to reiterate this further. Please take it as read now and move on, or rather back, to the Democrat nomination so that other posters do not have to skip over your posts to find the thread topic.

(If you still wish to pursue it at length I would be happy to validate you both on my region's offsite and dedicate a separate forum to the discussion. You could then link or copy any posts that were relevant to this thread.)

If we're not paying enough attention to you, just say so. This "knock it off" is just too obvious. Plus the blatant plug for your site is shameful. Sad, really.

31 words. Words not about Ardchoille: 0

If we're not paying enough attention to you, just say so. This "knock it off" is just too obvious. Plus the blatant plug for your site is shameful. Sad, really.

31 words. Words not about Ardchoille: 0

Well I know the pair of you are ignoring posts as you ignored my valid point yesterday in persuit of your 'discussion'. If you wish to rant at each other over the same issue could you please go elsewhere? It's getting boring.

On the proper topic...

Is there anyone from the US who could give me a good reading on how people actually took the 'mispeaking' that Clinton did? As I said in the other thread I could never trust anyone who was so blatantly lying in front of the nation for support. It makes me personally wonder how much of what she has ever said is spin, lies and more spin. Ergo makes me wonder how much I could trust Clinton.

<snip> Irreverent blighter! Check your TGs.

Well I know the pair of you are ignoring posts as you ignored my valid point yesterday in persuit of your 'discussion'. If you wish to rant at each other over the same issue could you please go elsewhere? It's getting boring.

On the proper topic...

Is there anyone from the US who could give me a good reading on how people actually took the 'mispeaking' that Clinton did? As I said in the other thread I could never trust anyone who was so blatantly lying in front of the nation for support. It makes me personally wonder how much of what she has ever said is spin, lies and more spin. Ergo makes me wonder how much I could trust Clinton.

Yes, well, we've kind of been all kinds of through her lie about Bosnia, so now we're back to warmongering or whatever one might call "obliterating Iran".

She does have her upsides, though. I mean, she wants to save you half a tank of gas in six months. That's the kind of President we need. The kind that offers solutions that mask the problem.

Well I know the pair of you are ignoring posts as you ignored my valid point yesterday in persuit of your 'discussion'. If you wish to rant at each other over the same issue could you please go elsewhere? It's getting boring.
Ummm sorry but your "valid point" came at 3:40 a.m., was the 3rd last post before the thread was locked and I was midstream typing a reply to Jocabia.

BTW, I am also sorry to say, but I don't believe that your "valid point" was accurate in detail.

I smell a puppet. :p

Ummm sorry but your "valid point" came at 3:40 a.m., was the 3rd last post before the thread was locked and I was midstream typing a reply to Jocabia.

BTW, I am also sorry to say, but I don't believe that your "valid point" was accurate in detail.

I smell a puppet. :p

I think we can agree that it's interesting someone would claim it's getting boring to talk about a relatively recent issue but that we should go back to something that happened months ago and has been rehashed repeatedly since.

I think the comments are relative to whether Clinton is credible, but absent a new context to place those comments in, I don't see what the point of continually rehashing such an old issue. Agree?

jocabia - Half a tank? Not really that much econmically really.

Ummm sorry but your "valid point" came at 3:40 a.m., was the 3rd last post before the thread was locked and I was midstream typing a reply to Jocabia.

BTW, I am also sorry to say, but I don't believe that your "valid point" was accurate in detail.

I smell a puppet. :p

Hmm so the british media playing me a film with her 'misspeak' and the actual film of her landing, and then me putting two and two together to say that this was a definite lie - too many falshoods to be an accident makes me a puppet? Interesting point but once more offtopic and an avoidance of directly responding.

I think we can agree that it's interesting someone would claim it's getting boring to talk about a relatively recent issue but that we should go back to something that happened months ago and has been rehashed repeatedly since.

I think the comments are relative to whether Clinton is credible, but absent a new context to place those comments in, I don't see what the point of continually rehashing such an old issue. Agree?

My point is that she is a proved liar or spin artist. Therefore she will backtrack on her Iran comment to save votes.

Edit: What is boring is that the pair of you didn't actually discuss this 'recent' point at all and instead just began to repeat the same posts over and again.

My point is that she is a proved liar or spin artist. Therefore she will backtrack on her Iran comment to save votes.

Edit: What is boring is that the pair of you didn't actually discuss this 'recent' point at all and instead just began to repeat the same posts over and again.

Then add something new. She's a liar isn't anything new or actually useful. What do you think she meant? What did you think of it? What do you think of her policies? What did you think of today's events with supers?

Or just call her a bitch and move on. Calling her a liar isn't particularly different. Again, you got anything?

Hmm so the british media playing me a film with her 'misspeak' and the actual film of her landing, and then me putting two and two together to say that this was a definite lie - too many falshoods to be an accident makes me a puppet? Interesting point but once more offtopic and an avoidance of directly responding.
Ummmm there were two parts to your "valid point". I was commenting on the other part.

And you are either a noob or a puppet. My gut instinct tells me puppet. :D

Then add something new. She's a liar isn't anything new or actually useful. What do you think she meant? What did you think of it? What do you think of her policies? What did you think of today's events with supers?

Or just call her a bitch and move on. Calling her a liar isn't particularly different. Again, you got anything?

I did add something new. I was reinforcing the idea that even though you both quoted the same topic they were reading differently because she is a liar.

However as the pair of you seem to dislike the idea of someone else joining in the discussion out of the frame of America then I can't be bothered to reply anymore. i hope you both enjoy repeating posts back to each other.

i'm a bit disappointed in obama over his distancing himself from reverand right who said nothing but the simple truth that anyone with half a brain who reads between the lines can see for themselve.

not enough to switch my support to hilary or mccain though. not even.

i don't claim to undertand the popularity machine well enough to know what will help or hurt his campaign.

i feel that if mccain gets elected he'll destroy what's left of the country. i don't know if THAT's good or bad either, but i don't see the u.s. as NEEDING another white, male, republican.

hilary of the three is probably the most 'bussiness as usual', which i don't see as being what we need either. obama i see as quite possibly the next jfk. the parallels, while not perfect, are none the less many. of course that makes him likely to get assasinated before he can get going too far on his SECOND term in office.

i'm guessing/hoping he'll pick someone like kusenich or gravel for his vp.
hillary i'm looking to pick edwards, which wouldn't be too bad of a deal, and of course mccain, to pick one buck huck.

i still think of the available choices obama is the best that stands any kind of a real chance.

of course if mccain were to choose ron paul, i MIGHT consider giving him a second look. but that seems pretty unlikely.

as for the g8 bit, i don't aggree with dissing russia, even though the're probably not really that major of a player any more, but i think the whole g8 and what their about is going to become superfilous in the next few decades, if not years. though this could happen all the quicker if mccain gets in.

what we really need of course, what i see as being really needed, i don't see as being offered by any of them, but we shall see what we shall see.

i suspect the rest of the universe might be watching too, to see, depending on a number of factors, this election being one of them, whether earth is ready for its bar mitzfa, or its time to hold a wake.

=^^=
.../\...

Wright did nothing more than speak the "simple truth"? In what world? He insulted and derided people, sought to claim that black people are inherently different from white people and claimed you cannot attack him without attacking the "Black Church". If you're a person seeking to unite people and rise above race issues, what choice would you have but to say something about such a thing.

They are on entirely different pages in regards to racial issues. And they are very different in approach. One is about highlighting the problems. The other is about encouraging people to get excited about resolving them.

You know, when you get a chance to step away from the back and forth, you get to see how tedious it really is. Of course the whole thing has gotten tedious. My daily checks of RCP to see what's being talked about has of the last two days been dominated by Wright-and seriously reading through them I still can't find why the fuck we're supposed to care.

The back and forth on obliterating Iran was too underway by the time I saw it. I did hear something on the news about Iran being upset about threats of obliteration (revealing more of the mirror).

I can't believe I actually miss the horse race. We're arguing about a pastor for no reason and some off the cuff saber rattling. To be fair, after such a long race, what's left to talk about?

At least the saber rattling is the words of the candidate speaking to duties of the presidency.

WE HAVE A SUPERDELEGATE SWITCHER:

(CNN) — The Obama campaign announced Thursday that former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew — who was appointed to that post in 1999 by then-President Clinton — is withdrawing his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, and backing Barack Obama instead.

The campaign said Andrew would appear at a 10 a.m. press conference at its state headquarters in Indianapolis, then join campaign manager David Plouffe on a conference call with reporters.

"Many will ask, why now? Why, with several primaries still remaining, with Senator Clinton just winning Pennsylvania, with my friend Evan Bayh working hard to make sure Senator Clinton wins Indiana, why switch now? Why call for super delegates to come together now to constructively pick a president?" said Andrew in a letter released Thursday.

"The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now."

The Indiana superdelegate served as party chairman from 1999 through 2001. He had endorsed Hillary Clinton last year, on the day she officially announced her White House bid.

With the switch, Clinton's lead over Obama among the party's superdelegates stands at 19.

Indiana voters head to the polls on Tuesday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/major-clinton-backer-switches-to-obama/

This is, to my knowledge, the first super delegate switching from one person to another. This is actually surprising to me.

WE HAVE A SUPERDELEGATE SWITCHER:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/major-clinton-backer-switches-to-obama/

This is, to my knowledge, the first super delegate switching from one person to another. This is actually surprising to me.

Not the first to switch, but good.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., switched from supporting Clinton to announcing that as a superdelegate he will vote for Obama.

Not the first to switch, but good.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., switched from supporting Clinton to announcing that as a superdelegate he will vote for Obama.

Ah...didn't know that about Lewis. Thanks :)

Ah...didn't know that about Lewis. Thanks :)

Yeah. They may a pretty big deal of it at the time because he had been a Clinton supporter for years. He said he changed because his constituency overwhelmingly voted for Obama. Lewis is a powerful and trusted lawmaker.

I did add something new. I was reinforcing the idea that even though you both quoted the same topic they were reading differently because she is a liar.

However as the pair of you seem to dislike the idea of someone else joining in the discussion out of the frame of America then I can't be bothered to reply anymore. i hope you both enjoy repeating posts back to each other.

No, you're welcome to join, but the "she's a liar bit" isn't new. Politicians lie. Water is wet. Cheese is tasty. You've not demonstrated why it's relevant? As far as her lying, I commented on that in my first post on the topic. I'm asking you what your opinion is on the whole thing. I'm asking for an evaluation. I don't want to hear about Hillary being a liar anymore without some point being made about why I should care. You've not made the connection. You might as well have called her a bitch for all the relevance of your comments.

You know, when you get a chance to step away from the back and forth, you get to see how tedious it really is. Of course the whole thing has gotten tedious. My daily checks of RCP to see what's being talked about has of the last two days been dominated by Wright-and seriously reading through them I still can't find why the fuck we're supposed to care.

The back and forth on obliterating Iran was too underway by the time I saw it. I did hear something on the news about Iran being upset about threats of obliteration (revealing more of the mirror).

I can't believe I actually miss the horse race. We're arguing about a pastor for no reason and some off the cuff saber rattling. To be fair, after such a long race, what's left to talk about?

At least the saber rattling is the words of the candidate speaking to duties of the presidency.

Yeah, that's why I'm glad we're cleaning out the thread on occasion. I'm hoping someone will show up with something new to say. The saber rattling thing is interesting if you read it, but everyone paying attention knows she's pretty aggressive in foreign policy. It's part of why so many people suggest she's more like McCain than Obama. Personally, I think she's not like McCain. McCain is far more consistent in his views on military aggressiveness (and I disagree with both of them strongly).

i'm a bit disappointed in obama over his distancing himself from reverand right who said nothing but the simple truth that anyone with half a brain who reads between the lines can see for themselve.

I'm a bit disappointed because I think the way he's handled it was more political than he would've liked. I don't believe Obama knew this man for 20 years and didn't know that he could be combative or that his perspective on race issues is one that can, at times, be counter-productive. I'm sure they've probably had many of the discussions we're now having on a national level about their differing viewpoints.

Obama should highlight the differences in approach between him and Rev. Wright. Obama should point to comments and methods of Wright's that he finds counter-productive and explain why. I thought his original speech on the subject was wonderful. He pointed out that he wouldn't reject Wright as a man, despite their disagreements, but that he recognized some of Wright's methods and points as problematic.

I'm sure that these sorts of conversations have been going back and forth between Wright and Obama for decades. I'm sure they both have criticisms of the way the other approaches it. Personally, I think Obama's approach is much better because he brings in all sorts of perspectives on the issue. There are many different perspectives that breed racism, not out of spite and meanness, but simply out of misplaced anger.

If they were professors, I'd say that Wright would be like the physics professor who can't see that his own understanding of the subject matter isn't getting through to his students because they don't have his same perspective. They don't just "get it" they way he does, and explaining it the same way over and over is only going to get through to the students who already understand, while the other students just turn off and stop listening.

Obama, on the other hand, is that professor who will explain the same thing in several different ways because he recognizes that the students need to come at it from their own perspective. And in bringing people from several different perspectives to the same conclusion, he fosters understanding and interest.

And, wow. I think I just wrote a book on a relatively simple subject.

of course if mccain were to choose ron paul, i MIGHT consider giving him a second look. but that seems pretty unlikely.

I must admit that I simply don't understand the number of people who show support for both Obama and Ron Paul. They're practically exact polar opposites. Obama is a social liberal who mostly wishes to see equal treatment under the law and keep the government out of our personal lives. Ron Paul would give the state governments the power to institute inequality and interfere as much as they wanted with our personal lives. Obama is significantly more left-wing than Paul on the economic side (although more middle-ground than many).

Possible outcome:

Obama has barely the delegates, and the superdelegates suddenly take the Wright flap into account, and declare him "unelectable" and vote for Hillary.

Riots ensue.

Oh, and it isn't just Limbaugh dreaming of them. Air America host Roseanne is encouraging it.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9112189

Roseanne Barr calls for DNC "trouble"
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 05/01/2008 03:30:06 AM MDT

Roseanne Barr told listeners on an Air America Radio show to "cause a bunch of trouble" in Denver. (Kevin Winter, Getty Images )

Just days after conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh came under fire for "dreaming of riots in Denver," another national talk show host issued a call for "trouble" at the Democratic National Convention — this time from the liberal side.

Roseanne Barr, guest host for "American Afternoon" on Air America Radio, told her listeners on Monday to "hop on buses for Denver" and "cause a bunch of trouble."

"We should, a bunch of us, go there and repeat the Democratic Convention from Chicago," Barr said, referring to the 1968 convention that resulted in rioting.

Possible outcome:

Obama has barely the delegates, and the superdelegates suddenly take the Wright flap into account, and declare him "unelectable" and vote for Hillary.

Riots ensue.

Oh, and it isn't just Limbaugh dreaming of them. Air America host Roseanne is encouraging it.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9112189

Oh, so it's fine to wish for people's deaths over this now? Okay: I hope Hillary dies a slow and painful, neuro-degenerative-disease-related death! I hope she witnesses her knowledge slowly slipping away, all the while getting unable to recognize the people she cares for the most! I hope this all starts in a manner that results in public humiliation! I hope she spends her last days in incredible pain, but unable to do or say anything about it, all the while Bill and Chelsea look powerlessly on as she decays in front of their eyes!

And I wish the same for McCain too! I hope he loses sphincter control while in a speech. I hope he starts mumbling all the while his language centers in his brain stop working, during the RNC! I hope he has dreams where he re-lives the situation in Vietnam that threw him in the spotlight! May he die, slowly, painfully, and alone! May his five senses leave him way before this!

Because both Limbaugh and Roseanne made it okay: If we are to start hoping for deaths, here, by all means, let's, but why stop there. If these morons want to play it rough, by all means, LET'S!

Edit: Not claiming Hotwife endorses this, mind you. But if these two clowns are so willing to make it all okay, then let's cut the gentle stuff like death and aim for slow, painful and tortured!

Oh, so it's fine to wish for people's deaths over this now? Okay: I hope Hillary dies a slow and painful, neuro-degenerative-disease-related death! I hope she witnesses her knowledge slowly slipping away, all the while getting unable to recognize the people she cares for the most! I hope this all starts in a manner that results in public humiliation! I hope she spends her last days in incredible pain, but unable to do or say anything about it!

And I wish the same for McCain too! I hope he loses sphincter control while in a speech. I hope he starts mumbling all the while his language centers in his brain stop working, during the RNC! I hope he has dreams where he re-lives the situation in Vietnam that threw him in the spotlight!

Because both Limbaugh and Roseanne made it okay: If we are to start hoping for deaths, here, by all means, let's, but why stop there. If these morons want to play it rough, by all means, LET'S!

Easy there, slugger, I don't think they're calling for people to kill anyone, just 'cause trouble'...no one that I know of died in the '68 convention deal and even if someone did, that wasn't the intent.

Easy there, slugger, I don't think they're calling for people to kill anyone, just 'cause trouble'...no one that I know of died in the '68 convention deal and even if someone did, that wasn't the intent.

A lot of skullcracking, though. Wasn't a pretty sight, and I believe it damaged the Democratic Party.

A lot of skullcracking, though. Wasn't a pretty sight, and I believe it damaged the Democratic Party.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, just saying that 'kill' is a bit of a leap.

Easy there, slugger, I don't think they're calling for people to kill anyone, just 'cause trouble'...no one that I know of died in the '68 convention deal and even if someone did, that wasn't the intent.

They don't care, do they? Well, neither do I. While we're at it, I'm adding Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage to the same wish-list! Along with Bush, Cheney, and many, many others.

Because THEY MADE IT OKAY!

They don't care, do they? Well, neither do I. While we're at it, I'm adding Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage to the same wish-list! Along with Bush, Cheney, and many, many others.

Because THEY MADE IT OKAY!

Dude, seriously, you're going to dislocate something making that stretch. No one is calling for any killing. Take a deep breath, man...

They don't care, do they? Well, neither do I. While we're at it, I'm adding Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage to the same wish-list! Along with Bush, Cheney, and many, many others.

Because THEY MADE IT OKAY!

Jesus Freakin' Christ!

You really made a stretch now. Grow up.

Dude, seriously, you're going to dislocate something making that stretch. No one is calling for any killing. Take a deep breath, man...

I'm not calling for killing - I'm just saying that riots are a likely outcome of the convention...

Dude, seriously, you're going to dislocate something making that stretch. No one is calling for any killing. Take a deep breath, man...

They both see those involved in a riot as collateral damage. And I HATE people that do this. They both hope for property destruction. And yes, possible death. So, I hereby declare that, if they can hope for bad stuff, so can I. Only, the bad stuff I wish upon them is something from the American Gothic.

Jesus Freakin' Christ!

You really made a stretch now. Grow up.

They started it. So, yes, they made it okay. Only I can copycat them with some more prejudice, by including niceties such as a neuro-degenerating disease.

They both see those involved in a riot as collateral damage. And I HATE people that do this. They both hope for property destruction. And yes, possible death. So, I hereby declare that, if they can hope for bad stuff, so can I. Only, the bad stuff I wish upon them is something from the American Gothic.

The DNC already financed a commercial where they showed US troops being blown up by an IED. If that isn't "they're wrong, and we're laughing at their pain", I don't know what is.

The good part is that I don't have to do anything to get the riots to happen. Air America is now encouraging it.

Full speed ahead with the stupidity in Denver - while I hope no one is killed, I trust that there will be plenty of Tasering and pepper spray.

I'm not calling for killing - I'm just saying that riots are a likely outcome of the convention...

He was talking to me. I recognized your point, so much so that I pointed out that I don't believe you are insane enough to HOPE for these things.

The DNC already financed a commercial where they showed US troops being blown up by an IED. If that isn't "they're wrong, and we're laughing at their pain", I don't know what is.

The good part is that I don't have to do anything to get the riots to happen. Air America is now encouraging it.

Full speed ahead with the stupidity in Denver - while I hope no one is killed, I trust that there will be plenty of Tasering and pepper spray.

No, that was "they're wrong, and we're sad that they are".

And please don't dash out my hopes that I'm talking to a decent human being.

They started it. So, yes, they made it okay. Only I can copycat them with some more prejudice, by including niceties such as a neuro-degenerating disease.

riots=/=killing

No one is calling for killing. Unless of course you have some proof to the contrary which you probably don't.

Now settle down dude.

No, that was "they're wrong, and we're sad that they are".

Oy....

Now we have a double standard.

riots=/=killing

No one is calling for killing. Unless of course you have some proof to the contrary which you probably don't.

Now settle down dude.

Riots have a decent chance of including deaths. And even if it's wishing for property destruction, or for pain, on others. I'm only amplifying it and sending it back.

Riots have a decent chance of including deaths. And even if it's wishing for property destruction, or for pain, on others. I'm only amplifying it and sending it back.

Except for the fact that no one is advocating death. The problem is...you are.

Except for the fact that no one is advocating death. The problem is...you are.

They're advocating a situation that has a pretty good chance of INCLUDING death.

But fine, I don't wish for their deaths. I CAN, after all, only wish for a long, debilitating, election-wrecking and painful brain-degenerating disease without wishing for death.

My point here is: If they can, why can't I? Heck, they get MONEY for it. I'm not even asking for cash to type this. :p

ron paul supporters would riot first

ron paul supporters would riot first

Good, because if people are hoping for rioting in the DNC, well, the RNC is fair game, is it not? Maybe with McCain losing control over it or having a stroke (he'd survive it, mind you, as I'm not wishing for deaths right now, but maybe survive it as a patient with locked-in syndrome? Mmm.)

Is there anyone from the US who could give me a good reading on how people actually took the 'mispeaking' that Clinton did?
I'm sorry to say this, but in the US a lot of people, maybe even a strong majority, simply take it for granted that anything said by anybody in government is mostly lies. Some people were upset by the "mis-speaking" (love that slimily evasive word!) but a lot just shrugged it off, "A politician, lying? What else is new?"

I'm sorry to say this, but in the US a lot of people, maybe even a strong majority, simply take it for granted that anything said by anybody in government is mostly lies. Some people were upset by the "mis-speaking" (love that slimily evasive word!) but a lot just shrugged it off, "A politician, lying? What else is new?"

its hard to know what to make of it. its a bald faced lie about something that doesnt matter much. it was stupid to do since she was the freaking first lady so of course there is video easily available to prove that she was mistaken.

then she claims that her husband had a POLICY of sending her to dangerous places. thats just bizarre.

it makes so little sense that its easier to let it go than to try to figure out what the point was in telling it at all. and since most politicians dont mind lying (bush does it all the time) we look at what was lied about....nothing important...and put it on the back burner of our concerns.

How about we head another direction? There seems to be an argument if some lunatics like Rosie and Rush say absurd things that it gives us the excuse. I won't wish them harm, and I'd like to believe that we shouldn't cater to the worst and most unreasonable among us.

That said, here's a bit of a different argument -
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/on_my_switch_from_clinton_to_o.html

It's explanation of the switch to Obama of Joe Andrew and it's quite moving, I say. It was good to hear someone mostly rise above. He takes a few swipes I didn't like, but he's very complimentary to Clinton and Obama both and makes a strong argument. It's inspiring and I was glad to read it.

then she claims that her husband had a POLICY of sending her to dangerous places. thats just bizarre.

Not given the rest of what we know about their marriage :D

I'd like to believe that we should cater to the worst and most unreasonable among us.

That's what I'm doing! :D

Not given the rest of what we know about their marriage :D

a man like bill NEEDS a wife like hillary or he would be constantly dunned by women wondering why he isnt asking them to marry him.

That's what I'm doing! :D

I hate you. And *fixed*

How about we head another direction? There seems to be an argument if some lunatics like Rosie and Rush say absurd things that it gives us the excuse. I won't wish them harm, and I'd like to believe that we shouldn't cater to the worst and most unreasonable among us.

That said, here's a bit of a different argument -
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/on_my_switch_from_clinton_to_o.html

It's explanation of the switch to Obama of Joe Andrew and it's quite moving, I say. It was good to hear someone mostly rise above. He takes a few swipes I didn't like, but he's very complimentary to Clinton and Obama both and makes a strong argument. It's inspiring and I was glad to read it.

very nice letter!

I hate you. And *fixed*

I can live with that. :D

How about we head another direction? There seems to be an argument if some lunatics like Rosie and Rush say absurd things that it gives us the excuse. I won't wish them harm, and I'd like to believe that we shouldn't cater to the worst and most unreasonable among us.

That said, here's a bit of a different argument -
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/on_my_switch_from_clinton_to_o.html

It's explanation of the switch to Obama of Joe Andrew and it's quite moving, I say. It was good to hear someone mostly rise above. He takes a few swipes I didn't like, but he's very complimentary to Clinton and Obama both and makes a strong argument. It's inspiring and I was glad to read it.

It's a good read and he makes some good points.

I tend to get rather put off by party politics, and this had a lot of that, but I think his reasons for switching are certainly valid. =)

Don't get me wrong, I love America and democracy and shit, but Mexico is looking like a nice option around now... and not because of McCain.

Slimest margin yet (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080504/ap_on_el_pr/guam_caucuses)...

HAGATNA, Guam - Barack Obama defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton by seven votes in the Guam Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday. The count of more than 4,500 ballots took all night.

And since it wouldn't be the Democratic primary process if it wasn't complicated-

The territory also sends five superdelegates to the National Convention in August in Denver.

Voters picked two of the superdelegates, electing uncommitted Pilar Lujan party chairman and Jaime Paulino vice chairman. Paulina ran as an Obama supporter. One other existing superdelegate has favored Clinton and the votes of the other two have not been declared.

The Guam caucuses added two pledged delegates apiece for Clinton and Obama. The vote for party chairman and vice chairman also added a superdelegate for Obama and subtracted one for Clinton because the outgoing vice chair had endorsed the New York senator.


Not that this will make any difference. It was the seven vote thing that made me want to post it.

Slimest margin yet (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080504/ap_on_el_pr/guam_caucuses)...

And since it wouldn't be the Democratic primary process if it wasn't complicated-

the other super that got elected has apparently said they will support the winner of the caucuses, which means another obama delegate barring a result changing recount.

Not that this will make any difference.

well, not in the sense of obama's eventual victory, though once again hrc has failed to meet the 65% of elected delegates in every contest to even begin to catch up. hang on, how many pledged dels are left now?
...
ok, there are now 404 pledged delegates left out of a total of 3253. 1627 is a majority. obama has 1493 and hrc has 1333 (obama count). so to get to a pledged delegate majority (and thus win the pelosi club of supers for sure, and almost absolutely certainly the nomination, without a donkey-show sex scandal) the campaigns need;

obama - 134, 31.2% of the remaining
clinton - 294, 72.8% of them, or maybe a little less if many of the edwards dels go to her

just for fun, let's say that obama picks up just 58 of nc's 115, barely eeking out a win. in that case, obama would need 76 and clinton would need 237 out of the remaining 289 pledged dels. which moves her to needing 82% of the dels from the rest of the races, compared to obama's 26.3%. and that's including indiana.

the other super that got elected has apparently said they will support the winner of the caucuses, which means another obama delegate barring a result changing recount.



well, not in the sense of obama's eventual victory, though once again hrc has failed to meet the 65% of elected delegates in every contest to even begin to catch up. hang on, how many pledged dels are left now?
...
ok, there are now 404 pledged delegates left out of a total of 3253. 1627 is a majority. obama has 1493 and hrc has 1333 (obama count). so to get to a pledged delegate majority (and thus win the pelosi club of supers for sure, and almost absolutely certainly the nomination, without a donkey-show sex scandal) the campaigns need;

obama - 134, 31.2% of the remaining
clinton - 294, 72.8% of them, or maybe a little less if many of the edwards dels go to her

just for fun, let's say that obama picks up just 58 of nc's 115, barely eeking out a win. in that case, obama would need 76 and clinton would need 237 out of the remaining 289 pledged dels. which moves her to needing 82% of the dels from the rest of the races, compared to obama's 26.3%. and that's including indiana.

The interesting math is that even with a good showing in the remaining contest, Hillary is going to need every remaining super to get over 2025. Obama will likely need less than half. Given that they are pretty much splitting them, it looks like Obama will pass the 2025 before the convention.

The interesting math is that even with a good showing in the remaining contest, Hillary is going to need every remaining super to get over 2025. Obama will likely need less than half. Given that they are pretty much splitting them, it looks like Obama will pass the 2025 before the convention.

oh god i hope he passes it soon. the sooner we get to hammering mccain the better.

oh god i hope he passes it soon. the sooner we get to hammering mccain the better.

Obama would have to win in both NC and IN in order for that to happen. AND I'd say that would have to include an NC win of 10 points or better. I don't think they'll both happen, though he still has three days to improve his position with voters.

Without that, I think we're going to see this go to June.

The interesting math is that even with a good showing in the remaining contest, Hillary is going to need every remaining super to get over 2025. Obama will likely need less than half. Given that they are pretty much splitting them, it looks like Obama will pass the 2025 before the convention.

yeah, right now she needs something approximately like 416 more dels, with 404 pledged and 278 supers left - including add-on's which are somewhat predictable (demcon watch's count).

Obama would have to win in both NC and IN in order for that to happen. AND I'd say that would have to include an NC win of 10 points or better. I don't think they'll both happen, though he still has three days to improve his position with voters.

Without that, I think we're going to see this go to June.

That's pretty much the way it's going to go. His numbers might improve in the next day or two but last minute deciders break for Clinton, mostly out of name recognition. I mean, honestly, if you haven't picked a pony by now you're not paying attention.

This is my prediction for Denver:

http://www.theakforum.net/photos/HillaryZap.gif

Okay, prediction time. I'm going with Obama by 8 in NC (yes, this is not as good as initially anticipated.)

In Indiana, I still think it COULD go either way, but if I had to guess, I'm going with Clinton by 2%.

Who else is willing to hazard some predictions in these two crazy races?

How is this still going!

I heard on the old telovisual a pundit saying, "Clinton's tactics have brought Obama down from Hope campaign and forced him to be a politican."

Somehow that's being viewed as a Clinton strength? She's literally clawing America away from the hope that Obama gave to millions of voters! Why is anyone still supporting for her and her quasi-republican tactics...

I HOPE that Obama wins both Indiana and NC tomorrow. But Hillary's killed my optimism for America. So I predict tomorrow to be highly inconclusive. As usual.

Okay, prediction time. I'm going with Obama by 8 in NC (yes, this is not as good as initially anticipated.)

In Indiana, I still think it COULD go either way, but if I had to guess, I'm going with Clinton by 2%.

Who else is willing to hazard some predictions in these two crazy races?

Based on RCP, I'm going with Clinton in Indiana by 3 points. In North Carolina, I'm going to go with Obama by 9.

obama by 1 in indiana and 10 in north carolina.

not an informed guess just what i hope happens.

Obama is over rated :rolleyes:

Obama is over rated :rolleyes:

in what way?

compared to whom?

I'm not a usual poster here, but I live in Winston-Salem, which is a liberal part of NC, and based on my own preception, I picture a Obama not doin too hot, Hillary's got a lead on him here, strange seeing how this is a college town. I say 52-48 Obama.


Go John McCain

Obama is over rated :rolleyes:

Ok, explain this to us please.

I'm not a usual poster here, but I live in Winston-Salem, which is a liberal part of NC, and based on my own preception, I picture a Obama not doin too hot, Hillary's got a lead on him here, strange seeing how this is a college town. I say 52-48 Obama.


Go John McCain

You do realize that there is more to North Carolina than Winston-Salem right?

You do realize that there is more to North Carolina than Winston-Salem right?

I think his point is the nature of Winston-Salem, being the kind of place Obama does well. However, it's still an anecdotal account, if we were going by that, Obama would be winning in a landslide, since in my world I rarely see a Clinton supporter, and never a McCain supporter.

Okay, prediction time. I'm going with Obama by 8 in NC (yes, this is not as good as initially anticipated.)

In Indiana, I still think it COULD go either way, but if I had to guess, I'm going with Clinton by 2%.

Who else is willing to hazard some predictions in these two crazy races?
Dammit, I just don't know. 7% in NC? I guess? Clinton by as much as 5% in IN, maybe lower.
EDIT: HA! I picked the RCP averages! Totally not on purpose...
Obama is over rated :rolleyes:
Calling things over rated is over rated.

clinton by a million

in my opinion

clinton by a million

in my opinion

votes, percent or delegates?

votes, percent or delegates?

It doesn't matter, you can't refute it: it's his opinion.

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher, and they said that, of the roughly 2000 questions that Obama has been asked, only 9 of them have pertained to the environment.

More questions have been asked about the flag on his lapel, or the lack of one.

Doesn't that seem odd, that we, as americans, are more concerened with "Obama might be anti-american" or "Obama might sell our kids to Al-Qaeda" than the acutal issues?

WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH US!?!?!?!!?

Sorry, but that REALLY pisses me off.

Flags on the suit: I DON'T CARE

Obama's angry preacher: I DON'T CARE

Obama might be a Muslim: I DON'T CARE

Obama might be bad at answering phone calls at 3 in the morning: FUNNY, BUT I STILL DON'T CARE

Also, for a little Hilary-bashing: isn't it odd that Hilary claims to be "of the people," when she has lived her entire life in upper-middle class and better? She and Bill made of $168 million in the last 8 years.

At least Obama knows what it is like to be poor.

It doesn't matter, you can't refute it: it's his opinion.

i wouldnt dream of trying.

tomorrow will tell who has made the best prediction.

i dont think free is going to win.

i wouldnt dream of trying.

tomorrow will tell who has made the best prediction.

i dont think free is going to win.

I'm pretty sure Free is being facetious, given his posts in this and the other Megathreads on the election.

I'm pretty sure Free is being facetious, given his posts in this and the other Megathreads on the election.

too bad. he cant take it back now. he doesnt get a second chance to win the office pool.

I'll give a narrow win, under 5%, in NC to Barack Obama and pretty much the opposite in Indiana for Hillary Clinton.

too bad. he cant take it back now. he doesnt get a second chance to win the office pool.

Ah man, and I bet he was really looking forward to those two free dinner passes for Fudruckers...

Ah man, and I bet he was really looking forward to those two free dinner passes for Fudruckers...

best $8 burger at the mall!

votes, percent or delegates?

yes

http://googlified.com/files/hillary-clinton.jpg

Day of Reckoning!!

best $8 burger at the mall!

I already totally won, anyway. With a blowjob on top if I'm within 1% in both states.

EDIT: Mustard, I meant to say mustard.

http://googlified.com/files/hillary-clinton.jpg

Day of Reckoning!!

Weak. You're not even going to offer up your predictions. No one's going to hold you to it. The truth is, we're all guessing. Though, if you're WAAAAAAY off, we might giggle a little, but otherwise it's just fun to see what everyone thinks.

Weak. You're not even going to offer up your predictions. No one's going to hold you to it. The truth is, we're all guessing. Though, if you're WAAAAAAY off, we might giggle a little, but otherwise it's just fun to see what everyone thinks.
Weak? At least I didn't wait until the day before before making a prediction. :D

I already gave my prediction (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640996&postcount=170)10 days ago, when RCP had Obama +15.5 in NC and Obama +3 in Indiana.

For the record.....today's RCP:

North Carolina:

RCP Average 04/28 - 05/05 -- 50.0 42.0 Obama +8.0
Insider Advantage 05/05 - 05/05 774 LV 47 43 Obama +4.0
Zogby Tracking 05/04 - 05/05 643 LV 51 37 Obama +14.0
SurveyUSA 05/02 - 05/04 -- 50 45 Obama +5.0
PPP (D) 05/03 - 05/04 870 LV 53 43 Obama +10.0
Rasmussen 05/01 - 05/01 831 LV 49 40 Obama +9.0
Research 2000 04/29 - 04/30 500 LV 51 44 Obama +7.0
Mason-Dixon 04/28 - 04/29 400 LV 49 42 Obama +7.0

Indiana:

RCP Average 05/02 - 05/05 -- 49.0 44.0 Clinton +5.0
Zogby Tracking 05/04 - 05/05 644 LV 43 45 Obama +2.0
InsiderAdvantage 05/04 - 05/04 502 LV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
SurveyUSA 05/02 - 05/04 675 LV 54 42 Clinton +12.0
Suffolk 05/03 - 05/04 600 LV 49 43 Clinton +6.0
PPP (D) 05/03 - 05/04 851 LV 51 46 Clinton +5.0

Those are the polls that they are averaging

Weak? At least I didn't wait until the day before before making a prediction. :D

I already gave my prediction (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640996&postcount=170)10 days ago, when RCP had Obama +15.5 in NC and Obama +3 in Indiana.

Obama wins by 9 in NC and Hillary wins by 3 or under in IN. With that being said, this is still big news for Obama. Obama needs 2025 to lock it up and give no choice to Hillary. He currently has 1747 including supers. If he wins .45 of the remaining delegates (Hillary wins by 10 points in each, unlikely, but I digress) that would give him another 200. So, 1947. There are 268 supers out at this point. Obama needs to only get 78 out of 268. This means that roughly %30 of the remaining superdelegates need to vote for him to lock up the nod at 2025. Hillary's chances are not very good at all.

Weak? At least I didn't wait until the day before before making a prediction. :D

I already gave my prediction (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640996&postcount=170)10 days ago, when RCP had Obama +15.5 in NC and Obama +3 in Indiana.
That's more of your vague nonsense so you can say "Splitting the vote when she was the front runner" is 'flying' on Super Tuesday. Numbers, dude. Show some sack.

Obama wins by 9 in NC and Hillary wins by 3 or under in IN. With that being said, this is still big news for Obama. Obama needs 2025 to lock it up and give no choice to Hillary. He currently has 1747 including supers. If he wins .45 of the remaining delegates (Hillary wins by 10 points in each, unlikely, but I digress) that would give him another 200. So, 1947. There are 268 supers out at this point. Obama needs to only get 78 out of 268. This means that roughly %30 of the remaining superdelegates need to vote for him to lock up the nod at 2025. Hillary's chances are not very good at all.

How many superdelegates would have to be stupid and believe that Obama is "unelectable" for Hillary to win?

Weak? At least I didn't wait until the day before before making a prediction. :D

I already gave my prediction (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640996&postcount=170)10 days ago, when RCP had Obama +15.5 in NC and Obama +3 in Indiana.

Um, those predictions are wide enough to drive a truck through. I predict Obama will be ahead on pledged delegates at the end of the race. *rubs hands nervously* I wonder if I'll be right. I can't wait to find out.

Here's someone else's prediction, albeit funnier.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/45786/

my actual guess is obama by 12 in north carolina, and clinton by 2 in indiana with a slim possibility of obama pulling a narrow win though still being down in delegates there.

edit: haha, kos just posted his wild-ass guesses and they are the same as mine, for roughly the same reasons. i guess i am now hiveminding with the great orange satan. creepy.

Okay, prediction time. I'm going with Obama by 8 in NC (yes, this is not as good as initially anticipated.)

In Indiana, I still think it COULD go either way, but if I had to guess, I'm going with Clinton by 2%.

Who else is willing to hazard some predictions in these two crazy races?

I'm going to amend. I'm putting Obama at about the same percentage lead in NC as Clinton held in PA. As CTOAN pointed out, it appears Clinton learned a lesson and Obama-esque landslides are a thing of the past for both candidates. I'm sticking on my IN prediction.

Here's someone else's prediction, albeit funnier.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/45786/

That actually was funny.

Probably close to the truth as well :)

How many superdelegates would have to be stupid and believe that Obama is "unelectable" for Hillary to win?

Not only would she have to win a ton of the undecided, she'd have to get his to switch. So far the only switching (twice) has been from her to him.

it appears Clinton learned a lesson

yeah, she'd probably do pretty well in the next primary campaign, given the lessons she's learned in this one.

yeah, she'd probably do pretty well in the next primary campaign, given the lessons she's learned in this one.

That's the amusing part. If she'd truly been "ready from day one", Obama wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell. But, of course, she's the underdog.

Here's someone else's prediction, albeit funnier.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/45786/

Brilliant, and scarily plausible.

yeah, she'd probably do pretty well in the next primary campaign, given the lessons she's learned in this one.

The lesson that people really don't like her, and they reject race-baiting and scorched earth politics?

I read that the Clinton camp is already breaching the possibility of a double-digit win in NC. They may just be trying to inflate expectations, but it's interesting that they're talking about such a large win at this point.

I read that the Clinton camp is already breaching the possibility of a double-digit win in NC. They may just be trying to inflate expectations, but it's interesting that they're talking about such a large win at this point.

They're claiming to expect a double-digit WIN in a state they're currently LOSING by near-double digits?

Surely they jest?

They're claiming to expect a double-digit WIN in a state they're currently LOSING by near-double digits?

Surely they jest?

Thanks to the miracle of Diebold...

Thanks to the miracle of Diebold...

So, how's that democracy working for you then? :p

So, how's that democracy working for you then? :p

I'm sure they'll blame the Republicans for this, somehow...

I'm sure they'll blame the Republicans for this, somehow...

Oh, to be sure, I don't blame them for the election debacle.

I blame them for the Iraq massacre, the Katrina fumble, and other, WAY more deadly, things.

I'm sure they'll blame the Republicans for this, somehow...

well rush limbaugh IS encouraging his listeners to register as democrats and vote for clinton. so if it happens im sure HE will take credit for it.

Boy, I don't even live in the US and am kinda sick of seeing the democrats clash on the news, I imagine it must be tough for you Americans :)


Anyway, it looks like Obama's the better choice right now, at least if I was American. As a Brazilian, I have to be more inclined towards McCain :)

well rush limbaugh IS encouraging his listeners to register as democrats and vote for clinton. so if it happens im sure HE will take credit for it.

Indeed he expressed the hopes of rioting in the DNC, caused by him.

To which I shall reward him by hoping he dies a slow, painful death, related to a degenerative disease of the brain.

Boy, I don't even live in the US and am kinda sick of seeing the democrats clash on the news, I imagine it must be tough for you Americans :)


Anyway, it looks like Obama's the better choice right now, at least if I was American. As a Brazilian, I have to be more inclined towards McCain :)

Cara, o McCain é um psicopata. Vc quer mesmo mais pau no Iraque?

Cara, o McCain é um psicopata. Vc quer mesmo mais pau no Iraque?

War in Iraq sucks, but it looks like the Republicans are less protectionist than their foes, which is specially important to us.

War in Iraq sucks, but it looks like the Republicans are less protectionist than their foes, which is specially important to us.

Maybe so, but not only does the war hurt us as well (especially given Bush's penchant for declaring left-wing states "evil"), but also the current leadership lacks the economic skill to make their open-border policies more than an afterthought. Plus it's not worth it to watch that war going on anyways.

Maybe so, but not only does the war hurt us as well (especially given Bush's penchant for declaring left-wing states "evil"), but also the current leadership lacks the economic skill to make their open-border policies more than an afterthought. Plus it's not worth it to watch that war going on anyways.

Syria, North Korea, and Iran are hardly "left-wing".

If your statement were true, Sweden would be on the axis of evil.

Maybe so, but not only does the war hurt us as well (especially given Bush's penchant for declaring left-wing states "evil"), but also the current leadership lacks the economic skill to make their open-border policies more than an afterthought. Plus it's not worth it to watch that war going on anyways.

Well, I'm far for being an expert, but everywhere I read says McCain is about the leftier the Rebublican party can go, which might be very, very different than the Bush way... if you have only 2 parties, differences within the parties may be more different than the difference of two small parties in a multi-party system, so I believe McCain cannot be considered equal to the current leadership.

And I also believe that Brazil is a very mature democracy and important leadership in the Latin America, not to mention a friend nation to almost every country in the world. An American internvention here because of its leftish regime is completly out of the picture. Bush's "axis of evil" is more towards dictatorship than to left/right policies, anyway... or else they should be against Spain, UK or Australia, all with current "Labour Party" governments.

Anyway, I do hate the war and I'm quite an Obama's fan, I really like the guy... I'm just being kinda selfish. My current line of thought is "I prefer a guy that's better for my country than another one that may be better for some other place and worse for me"

Well, I'm far for being an expert, but everywhere I read says McCain is about the leftier the Rebublican party can go, which might be very, very different than the Bush way... if you have only 2 parties, differences within the parties may be more different than the difference of two small parties in a multi-party system, so I believe McCain cannot be considered equal to the current leadership.

And I also believe that Brazil is a very mature democracy and important leadership in the Latin America, not to mention a friend nation to almost every country in the world. An American internvention here because of its leftish regime is completly out of the picture. Bush's "axis of evil" is more towards dictatorship than to left/right policies, anyway... or else they should be against Spain, UK or Australia, all with current "Labour Party" governments.

Anyway, I do hate the war and I'm quite an Obama's fan, I really like the guy... I'm just being kinda selfish. My current line of thought is "I prefer a guy that's better for my country than another one that may be better for some other place and worse for me"

Bush tried to overthrow Chavez FAR before Chavez got bad. Indeed I'd say he CAUSED Chavez to go bad.

Also, McCain is not half as liberal as he's cracked up to be.

Plus, Obama will end up helping us too. And even if he didn't, my priority is who will do less damage OVERALL, and that's Obama or even Hillary.

Bush tried to overthrow Chavez FAR before Chavez got bad. Indeed I'd say he CAUSED Chavez to go bad.

Also, McCain is not half as liberal as he's cracked up to be.

Plus, Obama will end up helping us too. And even if he didn't, my priority is who will do less damage OVERALL, and that's Obama or even Hillary.

Nah, I don't know about that... Chavez tried a coup d'etat some years before he got elected, so he was pretty "bad" before too...

Anyway, one thing is certain: it'll be pretty awesome if the US get their first black or first woman president, even though they might or might not be better for whoever... As I said before, if I was an American I'b be 100% democrat and 100% Obama.

Nah, I don't know about that... Chavez tried a coup d'etat some years before he got elected, so he was pretty "bad" before too...

Anyway, one thing is certain: it'll be pretty awesome if the US get their first black or first woman president, even though they might or might not be better for whoever... As I said before, if I was an American I'b be 100% democrat and 100% Obama.

Maybe so, but Bush doesn't care about being undemocratic as much as he cares about disagreeing with him. Plus, THIS time, Chavez was ELECTED.

Also, there are some neocons that DO favor a re-run of 1964. And that is something I'd rather see all neocons die a slow and painful death than see happen.

Maybe so, but Bush doesn't care about being undemocratic as much as he cares about disagreeing with him. Plus, THIS time, Chavez was ELECTED.

Also, there are some neocons that DO favor a re-run of 1964. And that is something I'd rather see all neocons die a slow and painful death than see happen.

Well, I think (the military coup d'etat of) 1964 is almost impossible to happen again but... huh... what is a "neocon"?? :P

Well, I think (the military coup d'etat of) 1964 is almost impossible to happen again but... huh... what is a "neocon"?? :P

Neo-Conservative. Look up PNAC - Project for a New American Century. Bush is one of them, and so are the other monsters that currently soil the White House with their existence in its halls.

They're claiming to expect a double-digit WIN in a state they're currently LOSING by near-double digits?

Surely they jest?

Double-digit win for Obama.

Well, I'm far for being an expert, but everywhere I read says McCain is about the leftier the Rebublican party can go, which might be very, very different than the Bush way... if you have only 2 parties, differences within the parties may be more different than the difference of two small parties in a multi-party system, so I believe McCain cannot be considered equal to the current leadership.

Most of this is untrue. Both parties are pretty far on the right. There is a not a huge gap between them. And the only reason there is any gap at all is that Republicans went from mid-right to way-the-hell-off-the-scale right. By comparison Dems look pretty far away. McCain on the other hand has already demonstrated that he has a penchant for war even when he can't keep the actors straight. That should be scary to every citizen of the world.

I have terrible and shocking news. Obama appears to have won NC. Also, shoes are intended to be worn on feet.

I have terrible and shocking news. Obama appears to have won NC. Also, shoes are intended to be worn on feet.

LOL.

Is that based on exit poll data? CNN is only showing about 1000 votes counted and those lean the other way.

The early exits strongly favor a great outcome for Obama for the day, but exit polls seem to always favor Obama pretty strongly. I think we'll see the split we're all expecting.

An interesting note is that it appears that Republicans who are cross-voting (or at least those that admit it) are likely to be responsible for 1% swing in favor of Hillary (11% of all voters favoring her by about 8%).

LOL.

Is that based on exit poll data? CNN is only showing about 1000 votes counted and those lean the other way.

Exit polls always favor Obama, but they're good to within 10 points or so and they are favoring Obama so hard, that's entirely improbable that Hillary wins NC, but we already knew that.

Exit polls always favor Obama, but they're good to within 10 points or so and they are favoring Obama so hard, that's entirely improbable that Hillary wins IN, but we already knew that.

You mean NC?

They're saying IN is still too close to call, I think. =)

You mean NC?

They're saying IN is still too close to call, I think. =)

Yes, yes, NC. Same difference. :D

Based off of what I am seeing, Indiana will be called for Clinton soon.

Based off of what I am seeing, Indiana will be called for Clinton soon.

It would be early. Lake County isn't in, as well as several Indianapolis suburbs. Hell, by the time Indianapolis finishes it will swing almost 20K MORE votes Obama's way. With current results that's 2%.

It would be early. Lake County isn't in, as well as several Indianapolis suburbs.

yeah, cnn hasn't been making the point quite clearly enough that when they say x% of the vote is in, they actually mean that x% of the precincts are in. and precincts don't have equal numbers of voters. it's sort of an important fact to gloss over so quickly.

Obama is now trailing Clinton by 8% wth 52% reporting.

Obama is now trailing Clinton by 8% wth 52% reporting.

Again, 52% of the precints. The whole northwest part of the state is still out and half of Indianapolis. Those are huge. I expect she'll win, but look for it to close down significantly, even very late (since Lake County stayed open late due to a lack of ballots).

EDIT: And IN is down to about 6%.

EDIT #2: And it's down to about 4.7% in IN. Starting to look a lot like the predictions. And still no Lake County.

Interesting note. The difference in NC where only 20% of the precints are in is 3 times larger than the difference in IN where they have nearly 60% of the precints in.

Obama is now trailing Clinton by 8% wth 52% reporting.

Right now, 52-48 in Indiana. Lead shrinking to 4 and below?

Obama up by 16 in NC right now. This can get bigger. The calls for Hillary to go are going to get louder.

Right now, 52-48 in Indiana. Lead shrinking to 4 and below?

Obama up by 16 in NC right now. This can get bigger. The calls for Hillary to go are going to get louder.

You beat me to it :(

You beat me to it :(

Eh, the lead in NC will shrink. It'll stay double digits, though. In fact, it would take a huge swing the other way in remaining voters, HUGE, in order for it not to be a double-digit win. In IN it's shrinking and when the northwest part of the state comes in she's going to feel it. This was a big day for Obama. Made all the better when the polls started overprojecting the wins of Hillary (which if you look back about a week in the poll thread you'll see me cheering about when CH posted the polls wildly favoring Hillary.)

Eh, the lead in NC will shrink. It'll stay double digits, though. In fact, it would take a huge swing the other way in remaining voters, HUGE, in order for it not to be a double-digit win. In IN it's shrinking and when the northwest part of the state comes in she's going to feel it. This was a big day for Obama. Made all the better when the polls started overprojecting the wins of Hillary (which if you look back about a week in the poll thread you'll see me cheering about when CH posted the polls wildly favoring Hillary.)

He hasn't posted in awhile. I guess he finally sees the handwritting on the wall that his beloved candidate is not going to be the nominee.

Right now, 52-48 in Indiana. Lead shrinking to 4 and below?

Obama up by 16 in NC right now. This can get bigger. The calls for Hillary to go are going to get louder.

It's at about 5%. My 2% claim is looking better by the minute, though I TOTALLY underpredicted NC.

It's at about 5%. My 2% claim is looking better by the minute, though I TOTALLY underpredicted NC.

Hey now...I said 3% for Indiana :D

Hey now...I said 3% for Indiana :D

You also called IN for Clinton WAAAAAY too early. The fact is that Lake County alone could close the current gap. COULD. I doubt it, but it COULD.

EDIT: But it's down to 4% now. The popular vote difference is about 38K. That's waaay smaller than when you were saying CNN would call it. In fact, it's down to about half with many, many more votes in.

You beat me to it :(

I'm updating as I'm watching his speech right now. NC is better than expected and even Indiana is closer than it seemed it would be just two weeks ago. The only question is will Hillary quit? Up until now even I have not called for her to give it up. This should show superdelegates a little more of what Barack has to offer.

You also called IN for Clinton WAAAAAY too early. The fact is that Lake County alone could close the current gap. COULD. I doubt it, but it COULD.

I did say the word soon. :D

I'm updating as I'm watching his speech right now. NC is better than expected and even Indiana is closer than it seemed it would be just two weeks ago. The only question is will Hillary quit? Up until now even I have not called for her to give it up. This should show superdelegates a little more of what Barack has to offer.

She won't quit. She does not know how. If she quits, I'll be surprised.

Originally Posted by Liuzzo View Post
Obama wins by 9 in NC and Hillary wins by 3 or under in IN. With that being said, this is still big news for Obama. Obama needs 2025 to lock it up and give no choice to Hillary. He currently has 1747 including supers. If he wins .45 of the remaining delegates (Hillary wins by 10 points in each, unlikely, but I digress) that would give him another 200. So, 1947. There are 268 supers out at this point. Obama needs to only get 78 out of 268. This means that roughly %30 of the remaining superdelegates need to vote for him to lock up the nod at 2025. Hillary's chances are not very good at all.

My 3 in Indiana is looking good. I aimed far too low for NC. I guess it's better to play it conservative when making predictions. Anyone seen CH? I'd like to hear his response to these results.

She won't quit. She does not know how. If she quits, I'll be surprised.

Sometimes it's better to quit when you know you've been bested. A little pragmatism would do that lady well. Substitute that for her sense of entitlement for the nomination and her "your hometown is my hometown" attitude.

Sometimes it's better to quit when you know you've been bested. A little pragmatism would do that lady well. Substitute that for her sense of entitlement for the nomination and her "your hometown is my hometown" attitude.

And don't forget her ham-fisted Kentucky accent during that speech last year. Oh god.

So Obama win NC pretty handily and Indianna is a close call. Am I getting this right?

Originally Posted by Liuzzo View Post
Obama wins by 9 in NC and Hillary wins by 3 or under in IN. With that being said, this is still big news for Obama. Obama needs 2025 to lock it up and give no choice to Hillary. He currently has 1747 including supers. If he wins .45 of the remaining delegates (Hillary wins by 10 points in each, unlikely, but I digress) that would give him another 200. So, 1947. There are 268 supers out at this point. Obama needs to only get 78 out of 268. This means that roughly %30 of the remaining superdelegates need to vote for him to lock up the nod at 2025. Hillary's chances are not very good at all.

My 3 in Indiana is looking good. I aimed far too low for NC. I guess it's better to play it conservative when making predictions. Anyone seen CH? I'd like to hear his response to these results.

Dude, I have to admit, I really wanted to go with the Zogby numbers in NC but I didn't want to get my hopes up. Bleh!! Zogby was why I upped my prediction in NC this morning to equal PA. I should have said double-digits. I'm such a chicken. :p

EDIT: Ugh. It looks like the IN lead is collapsing faster than I thought. It's about 3% now. The whole Northwest strip is still out and it's one of the most populous parts of the state. Obama could still win. He was down by 10% just a bit ago.

Dude, I have to admit, I really wanted to go with the Zogby numbers in NC but I didn't want to get my hopes up. Bleh!! Zogby was why I upped my prediction in NC this morning to equal PA. I should have said double-digits. I'm such a chicken. :p

EDIT: Ugh. It looks like the IN lead is collapsing faster than I thought. It's about 3% now. The whole Northwest strip is still out and it's one of the most populous parts of the state. Obama could still win. He was down by 10% just a bit ago.

I'm still seeing 4%.

I'm still seeing 4%.

It's about 35K difference out of nearly a million votes. It was 32K just a moment ago but one of the little counties just updated.

Here's the facts. The Clinton counties left are tiny. The bulk of the voters left are in heavily Obama counties. Most of the counties are fully in that have reported anything. It comes down to how well Obama did in the northern corridor of the state. If he wins big, he could pull this out.

So Obama win NC pretty handily and Indianna is a close call. Am I getting this right?

As of 10pm ET, Obama leads in NC by 14 points with about 64% of precincts reporting. Clinton leads IN by 4 points with 79% of precincts reporting.

I'm still seeing 4%.

It's about 35K difference out of nearly a million votes. It was 32K just a moment ago but one of the little counties just updated.

Here's the facts. The Clinton counties left are tiny. The bulk of the voters left are in heavily Obama counties. Most of the counties are fully in that have reported anything. It comes down to how well Obama did in the northern corridor of the state. If he wins big, he could pull this out.

By the by, Zogby had Clinton at just under 10 in PA. Now they had Obama at 14 in NC and 2 in IN. Zogby may once again be the closest pollster in the bunch. Interesting, no?

Now the interesting stuff happens. I suspect we'll continue to see the difference hovering around 40K until Lake comes in. Apparently, Lake could make up that amount if it goes 60-40 Obama, which, given it's part of "Chicagoland", it certainly could. Wow, I have to say this is the first time I've been really excited about this race in a long time. Regardless of outcome, I love that IN is so close and that everyone is watching it.

By the by, I wouldn't want to smell Hillary's pants just now. "Bill... Bill... I don't feel so well."

Lake County is not going to release any results till all the Absentee ballots have been counted. This could go on till about midnight.

Straight from CNN.

Lake County is not going to release any results till all the Absentee ballots have been counted. This could go on till about midnight.

Straight from CNN.

Just to point out how close this really is, I've read that Lake County might have had more than 200K votes.

Yay Indiana. *keeps fingers crossed*

Obama is up to about 15% in NC.

It's hovering about 3.8% for IN with the difference staying at about 40K popular.

North Carolina was a projected Obama win for weeks, and it's unsurprising that he managed to carry a state in which 40% of the electorate is African-American, and over 90% of them voted for him.

The Obamites should celebrate while they can. The next series of states (save for Oregon) have demographics that favor Clinton, and I expect her to reel off a series of wins in them.

This isn't even close to being over.

I hadn't realized the primaries were tonight.

Fun stuff to see Obama pulling through. Come on, Lake County! Bring it on home!

North Carolina was a projected Obama win for weeks, and it's unsurprising that he managed to carry a state in which 40% of the electorate is African-American, and over 90% of them voted for him.

The Obamites should celebrate while they can. The next series of states (save for Oregon) have demographics that favor Clinton, and I expect her to reel off a series of wins in them.

This isn't even close to being over.

Yeah, and how many delegates do the next series of states have? How many is she behind by? And what difference will make after the landslide of supers happen this week?

I hadn't realized the primaries were tonight.

Fun stuff to see Obama pulling through. Come on, Lake County! Bring it on home!

Yeah, buddy. I love Lake County. They will certainly deliver at best a slim Clinton Victory, which means that today, Obama eclipsed the gains of a week ago. Like I said, I wouldn't want to smell Clinton's pants.

Yeah, and how many delegates do the next series of states have? How many is she behind by? And what difference will make after the landslide of supers happen this week?

Especially if he pulls a win in Indiana as well.

North Carolina was a projected Obama win for weeks


You mean like Pen was for Clinton? I seem to recall you trumpeting her greatness after she won.

Interesting how a predicted win doesnt count when its for your opponent.

Yeah, buddy. I love Lake County. They will certainly deliver at best a slim Clinton Victory, which means that today, Obama eclipsed the gains of a week ago. Like I said, I wouldn't want to smell Clinton's pants.

You have to admire her tenacity. I don't like how she's been going about her attempts at winning the candidacy, but Senator Clinton is definitely stubborn. That can be a good quality at times.

In any case, at this point, I'm willing to say that her chances are steadily dropping. It's still not over, but it's very close. She'd have to pull off some sort of miracle for her to win now.

Yeah, and how many delegates do the next series of states have? How many is she behind by? And what difference will make after the landslide of supers happen this week?

The delegates are unimportant. This is not about them. This is about who is best positioned to be elected in the fall first, and popular vote second. I think it's overly optimistic to assume that superdelegates will jump on Obama's bandwagon in droves if Clinton trades states with him.

Barack Obama is not the best choice for the fall campaign. There's a whole slew of polls that show Clinton challenging McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, ALL of them swing states that Obama lost. It is difficult to become President of the United States if you write off the sixty-eight electoral votes commanded by those states alone.

You have to admire her tenacity. I don't like how she's been going about her attempts at winning the candidacy, but Senator Clinton is definitely stubborn. That can be a good quality at times.

In any case, at this point, I'm willing to say that her chances are steadily dropping. It's still not over, but it's very close. She'd have to pull off some sort of miracle for her to win now.

He is outspending her in the prime media markets by three-to-one or more, and she continues trading punches on a nearly equal footing with him. It's hard NOT to find some inspiration in her staying power. I know it's driving some of Obama's supporters absolutely insane.

He is outspending her in the prime media markets by three-to-one or more, and she continues trading punches on a nearly equal footing with him. It's hard NOT to find some inspiration in her staying power. I know it's driving some of Obama's supporters absolutely insane.

Name recognition is something you get for free sweety.

The delegates are unimportant. This is not about them. This is about who is best positioned to be elected in the fall first

They went with electability in 2004. That went well.

He is outspending her in the prime media markets by three-to-one or more, and she continues trading punches on a nearly equal footing with him. It's hard NOT to find some inspiration in her staying power. I know it's driving some of Obama's supporters absolutely insane.

And she started with near complete name recognition, a huge amount of media attention, the assumption of invulnerability, the party establishment's support, and was facing some junior senator from Illinois who was known by those who had heard of him as a guy who'd given a good speech at the 2004 DNC and John Edwards. And look who's on top of the delegate count and popular vote now.

"Staying power" indeed.

Name recognition is something you get for free sweety.

Ah, yet another excuse.

The fact is that Obama has not demonstrated the ability to decisively win a hotly-contested fight. How many times has he had an opportunity to knock Clinton out and failed? He's not had a difficult campaign before now, and until recently he was more or less unvetted. If you think Clinton's giving him a rough time right now, just WAIT until the general election (if he gets that far) and John McCain. McCain's people have been in close contact with Bush's electioneers. They are going to run a classic Karl-Rove style campaign, and I am not convinced Obama can overcome it.

Ah, yes, Clinton is more electable in a contested fight which is why she's winning the nomination.

Oh, wait.

Ah, yet another excuse.


Are you seriously, seriouisly going to deny that name recognition is playing a HUGE part for Hillary?

The rest of that Im just going to ignore, as I know I at least have torn that up several times.

It's hard NOT to find some inspiration in her staying power.

of course, anybody with any realistic shot at all (with cash and organization, etc - aka, not kucinich) could exhibit the same sort of staying power. it's a feature of the process rather than the candidate. lots of people could drag things out more or less indefinitely under the dem's primary rules.

The delegates are unimportant. This is not about them. This is about who is best positioned to be elected in the fall first, and popular vote second. I think it's overly optimistic to assume that superdelegates will jump on Obama's bandwagon in droves if Clinton trades states with him.

Barack Obama is not the best choice for the fall campaign. There's a whole slew of polls that show Clinton challenging McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, ALL of them swing states that Obama lost. It is difficult to become President of the United States if you write off the sixty-eight electoral votes commanded by those states alone.

The delegates are unimportant? Hmmm... interesting. Then why is Clinton trying so hard to get some of them seated. They don't matter? Except they do. Except they don't. She and her supporters should make up their mind.

One wonders, why, if delegates are so unimportant, we're fighting so hard in races where the delegates are chosen. When Obama passes 2025, you and people like you will finally realize what Clinton realized too late. Delegates are important and Obama knew how to get them. Obama was ready from day one of this campaign. Hillary is too little too late.

North Carolina was a projected Obama win for weeks, and it's unsurprising that he managed to carry a state in which 40% of the electorate is African-American, and over 90% of them voted for him.

The Obamites should celebrate while they can. The next series of states (save for Oregon) have demographics that favor Clinton, and I expect her to reel off a series of wins in them.

This isn't even close to being over.

Ahem, I see you've braved the results to come here. I find it hard to distinguish you and another (CH puppet?) poster in your message. Anyhow, this is what I said before the before the election results today.

Obama wins by 9 in NC and Hillary wins by 3 or under in IN. With that being said, this is still big news for Obama. Obama needs 2025 to lock it up and give no choice to Hillary. He currently has 1747 including supers. If he wins .45 of the remaining delegates (Hillary wins by 10 points in each, unlikely, but I digress) that would give him another 200. So, 1947. There are 268 supers out at this point. Obama needs to only get 78 out of 268. This means that roughly %30 of the remaining superdelegates need to vote for him to lock up the nod at 2025. Hillary's chances are not very good at all.

The math here still holds true. It actually shows a smaller window for her now that Obama is winning well into the double-digits there. She's not in Huckabee territory, but she sure as shit is getting pounded. Let's look at the remaining states and their delegates shall we? (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html)

Wow, Hillary's speech right now is actually just poor. "Count the votes!" Play a new tune lady, people have not forgotten your pledge to play by those rules. Now that you have two illegitimate races which would favor you (Seriously, you want credit for a state that you were the only one on the ballot?) you'd like to go back on your word? Poor move lady, and another of the reasons that I would never vote for you. Cnn just commented that "It looked like Chelsea Clinton's heart was breaking." Hillary prodded through that speech and she did her best. She thought today would turn out far better than it did.

Tuesday, May 6


Indiana Primary 84 delegates
North Carolina Primary 134 delegates
Tuesday, May 13


West Virginia Primary 39 delegates
Tuesday, May 20


Kentucky Primary 60 delegates
Oregon Primary 65 delegates
Sunday, June 1


Puerto Rico Primary 63 delegates
Tuesday, June 3


Montana Primary 24 delegates
South Dakota Primary 23 delegates

Are you seriously, seriouisly going to deny that name recognition is playing a HUGE part for Hillary?

The rest of that Im just going to ignore, as I know I at least have torn that up several times.

What I find ironic is that he says just a post after crying about Obama outspending her.

Interestingly enough, Obama has proven that he does compete well in hotly contested states. Obama's MO has been to eat into a Hillary lead until he wins or closes the gap considerably. Hillary tried to do that with 15 point Obama lead, and where did it land. Hmmm... well, about 15 points it seems.

The delegates are unimportant? Hmmm... interesting. Then why is Clinton trying so hard to get some of them seated. They don't matter? Except they do. Except they don't. She and her supporters should make up their mind.

One wonders, why, if delegates are so unimportant, we're fighting so hard in races where the delegates are chosen. When Obama passes 2025, you and people like you will finally realize what Clinton realized too late. Delegates are important and Obama knew how to get them. Obama was ready from day one of this campaign. Hillary is too little too late.

And if arrogant people like you continue to ride roughshod over people like me, don't be surprised if a surprising number of us turn red in November and hand John McCain the presidency.

You mean like Pen was for Clinton? I seem to recall you trumpeting her greatness after she won.

Interesting how a predicted win doesnt count when its for your opponent.

Good pick up chap. Words come back to show hypocrisy.

Ahem, I see you've braved the results to come here. I find it hard to distinguish you and another (CH puppet?) poster in your message. Anyhow, this is what I said before the before the election results today.

Obama wins by 9 in NC and Hillary wins by 3 or under in IN. With that being said, this is still big news for Obama. Obama needs 2025 to lock it up and give no choice to Hillary. He currently has 1747 including supers. If he wins .45 of the remaining delegates (Hillary wins by 10 points in each, unlikely, but I digress) that would give him another 200. So, 1947. There are 268 supers out at this point. Obama needs to only get 78 out of 268. This means that roughly %30 of the remaining superdelegates need to vote for him to lock up the nod at 2025. Hillary's chances are not very good at all.

The math here still holds true. It actually shows a smaller window for her now that Obama is winning well into the double-digits there. She's not in Huckabee territory, but she sure as shit is getting pounded. Let's look at the remaining states and their delegates shall we? (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html)

Wow, Hillary's speech right now is actually just poor. "Count the votes!" Play a new tune lady, people have not forgotten your pledge to play by those rules. Now that you have two illegitimate races which would favor you (Seriously, you want credit for a state that you were the only one on the ballot?) you'd like to go back on your word? Poor move lady, and another of the reasons that I would never vote for you. Cnn just commented that "It looked like Chelsea Clinton's heart was breaking." Hillary prodded through that speech and she did her best. She thought today would turn out far better than it did.

Tuesday, May 6


Indiana Primary 84 delegates
North Carolina Primary 134 delegates
Tuesday, May 13


West Virginia Primary 39 delegates
Tuesday, May 20


Kentucky Primary 60 delegates
Oregon Primary 65 delegates
Sunday, June 1


Puerto Rico Primary 63 delegates
Tuesday, June 3


Montana Primary 24 delegates
South Dakota Primary 23 delegates

What's interesting is that you can practically gaurantee a split on the remaining delegates. That said, Obama is gonna need like 60 delegates out of the remaining supers, and you better believe they're coming and they're coming on like train after tonight.

And if arrogant people like you continue to ride roughshod over people like me, don't be surprised if a surprising number of us turn red in November and hand John McCain the presidency.

Its so cute how you call everyone who disagrees with you "arrogant".

Tell me, do you write Hillary's talking points, or just shamelessly plagerize them?

EDIT: Besides, Hillary supporters going red would prove one of two things to me.

A) Hillary and her supporters are merely Republicans disguised as democrats
B) Hillary supporters tend to be racist hicks that are at least bright enough to not vote against their economic intrests, unless that means voting for a "******".


NOTE: The above only applies to Hillary supports who for some reason would vote for McCain rather then the guy who is very similiar to their prefered canidate in his views.

And if arrogant people like you continue to ride roughshod over people like me, don't be surprised if a surprising number of us turn red in November and hand John McCain the presidency.

You know, I'm just an independent who happens to have a political viewpoint that is usually interpreted by the mainstream of America as socialist(which of course it isn't when measured on an international level, but that's not the point), but I don't think you'd actually do that. Why?

Because politics isn't the sort of thing people change on with a drop of a hat. Almost always, people's positions on issues are founded for reasons that simply aren't going to change, even with something as shattering as this. I've heard this threat from a number of Democrats and I simply don't believe a single one of them would actually, truly choose John McCain over Barack Obama, because they know that John McCain doesn't actually represent their interests and they know that being vindictive like that would be a very foolish mistake, especially after having dealt with eight years of George W. Bush.

And if arrogant people like you continue to ride roughshod over people like me, don't be surprised if a surprising number of us turn red in November and hand John McCain the presidency.

Run roughshod? How so? You come in here making false claims. I'm gonna call shananigans when you are speaking nonsense. What does that have to do with Obama? Nothing. Yet, you'd curse our country to McCain to teach me a lesson? One wonders what kind of person would choose McCain over Obama, and it appears the kind of person who gets so bitter at losing that they would wish harm on a large part of the country under another Republican regime, a regime that promised today to ensure that women's rights are no longer protected, just to teach a lesson to people who got it right when you didn't

Vote your heart. If your heart tells you the best person for the people of the US is McCain, then, well, that's what it tells you. But don't threaten me. All that shows you to be is surprisingly and sadly petty.

And if arrogant people like you continue to ride roughshod over people like me, don't be surprised if a surprising number of us turn red in November and hand John McCain the presidency.

By the by, people like ME are rich, white, straight, Christian and free to travel about the world. It's not me you'd be harming by voting for McCain. So threaten away.

I stand for the Democrats this season because I stand for others who need to keep us from continuing on the current path. You seem more concerned about harming others, harming me. It's not hard to tell which of those approaches is a good idea.

And if arrogant people like you continue to ride roughshod over people like me, don't be surprised if a surprising number of us turn red in November and hand John McCain the presidency.

That will happen anyway. I said it all along that if Hillary is the nominee it would hand the race to the Republicans. I don't think all of the Hillary supporters are quite as passionate as you. Take your vote the the Republicans because you make me happy either way. I'll take Barack or McCain over Hillary any day of the week. Running roughshod does not equal pointing out that there is a superior candidate, in our opinion. If your feelings get too hurt because you get told your candidate is not well liked then maybe a debate forum is not the right place for you. I'll say this again. The person who has made the best case for Hillary Clinton was TCT, an admitted Obama supporter. I took pause when he explained his reasoning for Hillary to win. He gave me the complete opposite point of view than mine, and it did not insult me in any way. I did not flame him and respected his view. That's debate done well as far as I am concerned.

Especially since Obama and Clinton are so close on issues that pretty much the only reason you'd pick Clinton over McCain yet McCain over Clinton is that you're disappointed that Clinton is not able to win the nomination.

Hooray, a generalization. Now, prove me wrong. Give me a good reason to vote for Clinton over McCain and McCain over Clinton. And if it involves electability, then it fails, because if Clinton cannot win the nomination she certainly can't win the general.

Run roughshod? How so? You come in here making false claims. I'm gonna call shananigans when you are speaking nonsense. What does that have to do with Obama? Nothing. Yet, you'd curse our country to McCain to teach me a lesson? One wonders what kind of person would choose McCain over Obama, and it appears the kind of person who gets so bitter at losing that they would wish harm on a large part of the country under another Republican regime, a regime that promised today to ensure that women's rights are no longer protected, just to teach a lesson to people who got it right when you didn't

Vote your heart. If your heart tells you the best person for the people of the US is McCain, then, well, that's what it tells you. But don't threaten me. All that shows you to be is surprisingly and sadly petty.

I was not referring to me, myself.

I, however, live in one of those swing states. Ohio to be precise. The same state that put Bush in the White House in 2004.

There is a saying here. "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation". That is not an idle boast. Ohio has an amazing track record when it comes to elections. We have picked the Presidential winner 78% of the time...and no Republican has EVER won the White House without us in their column.

Regardless of the rosy, happy message of the Obama campaign, he has lost not only Ohio, but states with economics and cultures very similar to Ohio. He lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and is currently losing Indiana. In Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania he lost by pretty sharp margins. He doesn't click here very well for reasons that escape me.

Do me a favor. Go onto an electoral map and use a red crayon to color in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Then show me a likely scenario in which Obama can reach the required 270 electoral votes.

I still call this for John McCain - people here forget that America is not exactly a liberal bastion and Barack Obama is portrayed as the most liberal politician there is.

I doubt Hillary Clinton can win either, way too many people simply don't like her.

Barack Obama's main chance lies in galvanising the youth vote, which he did but I think this process is taking the steam out of that, he's not the inspiring figure he was, admittedly in my perception.

It may be that John McCain has enough negatives that people won't vote for him though I doubt it, he's tended to hit them head on already, perhaps his age alone remains the real issue, something I notice Howard Dean raised today, or yesterday.

I simply suspect that, once Barack Obama's voting record is truly attacked as the liberal pattern it is - and that's liberal according to the US there - the old fear of 'liberals ruining our country' will come back in style.

All so sad, I truly hope I'm wrong.

He is outspending her in the prime media markets by three-to-one or more, and she continues trading punches on a nearly equal footing with him. It's hard NOT to find some inspiration in her staying power. I know it's driving some of Obama's supporters absolutely insane.

Inspiration, sure. But a feeling that you are the best candidate to go forth, not at all. You're losing the game and that's it. Here are my thoughts on what happens from this point. Supers are going to be breaking for Obama all week. Hillary will get beat at least 4-1 in that category. Hillary will be done by early June. That is, unless she really is that desperate and unwilling to give up.

I was not referring to me, myself.

I, however, live in one of those swing states. Ohio to be precise. The same state that put Bush in the White House in 2004.

There is a saying here. "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation". That is not an idle boast. Ohio has an amazing track record when it comes to elections. We have picked the Presidential winner 78% of the time...and no Republican has EVER won the White House without us in their column.

Regardless of the rosy, happy message of the Obama campaign, he has lost not only Ohio, but states with economics and cultures very similar to Ohio. He lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and is currently losing Indiana. In Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania he lost by pretty sharp margins. He doesn't click here very well for reasons that escape me.

Do me a favor. Go onto an electoral map and use a red crayon to color in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Then show me a likely scenario in which Obama can reach the required 270 electoral votes.

First of all, Michigan? Yes, you tend to lose by pretty sharp margins when you're not on the ballot. It's unsurprising to me that some people who quite obviously are more emotional than reasonable out this issue tend towards claiming victory in a contest with no opponents. I just won at poker. No one else was playing. And guess what? I didn't lose 40% of my money doing it.

Second, current polling has Obama winning in PA. It also has him winning in VA, Wisconsin and a number of other newly purple states thanks to Obama.

Clinton played the +1 game. It cost her the election. Kerry played the +1 game. It cost him the election. Gore played the +1 game. It cost him the election. Obama isn't playing the same game you think he has to play. He's competing in every state and because of that, like 1984, every state is in play.

Primaries say nothing about who will win a state in the general, because they are between two similar candidates, not two truly opposing candidates.

I was not referring to me, myself.

I, however, live in one of those swing states. Ohio to be precise. The same state that put Bush in the White House in 2004.

There is a saying here. "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation". That is not an idle boast. Ohio has an amazing track record when it comes to elections. We have picked the Presidential winner 78% of the time...and no Republican has EVER won the White House without us in their column.

Regardless of the rosy, happy message of the Obama campaign, he has lost not only Ohio, but states with economics and cultures very similar to Ohio. He lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and is currently losing Indiana. In Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania he lost by pretty sharp margins. He doesn't click here very well for reasons that escape me.

Do me a favor. Go onto an electoral map and use a red crayon to color in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Then show me a likely scenario in which Obama can reach the required 270 electoral votes.

Firstly, Ohio alone did not give Bush 2004. He won like 25-30 other states IIRC. Ohio was a close one but there were several ones that were closer than Ohio.

I don't see a way he could win Michagin. He wasn't on the ballot.
And further, wins in primary =/= win in general. Loss in primary =/= loss in general.

In Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania he lost by pretty sharp margins. He doesn't click here very well for reasons that escape me.

Yep. He lost Michigan. Mainly because he wasnt on the ballot.


Think of it this way. 30%ish of those who voted went to vote JUST SO THEY COULD VOTE AGAINST HILLARY by voting uncommitted. 30-40% of everyone in Michigan who took time out of their day to vote voted "Anyone but Clinton".

Ah, yes, Clinton is more electable in a contested fight which is why she's winning the nomination.

Oh, wait.

And further, wins in primary =/= win in general. Loss in primary =/= loss in general.

Sorry to pick on you here Silver Star but this is just so common in these threads - first you make the comparison over contested fights and then you say they're not comparable.

Be consistent.

I still call this for John McCain - people here forget that America is not exactly a liberal bastion and Barack Obama is portrayed as the most liberal politician there is.

I doubt Hillary Clinton can win either, way too many people simply don't like her.

Barack Obama's main chance lies in galvanising the youth vote, which he did but I think this process is taking the steam out of that, he's not the inspiring figure he was, admittedly in my perception.

It may be that John McCain has enough negatives that people won't vote for him though I doubt it, he's tended to hit them head on already, perhaps his age alone remains the real issue, something I notice Howard Dean raised today, or yesterday.

I simply suspect that, once Barack Obama's voting record is truly attacked as the liberal pattern it is - and that's liberal according to the US there - the old fear of 'liberals ruining our country' will come back in style.

All so sad, I truly hope I'm wrong.

No one else is running and McCain is only getting three quarters of the vote from his own party. Seriously, in NC, Obama didn't end up much worse of than McCain and he had an active and serious opponnent. That's just sad.

McCain isn't the McCain of 2000 and now he is out saying he's going to switch the judicial power strongly into the corner of the religious right. The fears that were so silly in 2000 are becoming very real in 2008. The liberals in this country, particular young liberals and the rich liberals like myself are going to be seriously motivated in the general because this is no longer about which guy you think is amusing or you might want to barbeque with.

Sorry to pick on you here Silver Star but this is just so common in these threads - first you make the comparison over contested fights and then you say they're not comparable.

Be consistent.

How about this? She couldn't run a remotely good campaign. It took her months to figure what Obama knew right off. Every state. Every voter. She didn't do that and it's going to cost her the Presidency.

<snip>He gave me the complete opposite point of view than mine, and it did not insult me in any way. I did not flame him and respected his view. That's debate done well as far as I am concerned.

QFT, OK?

I was not referring to me, myself.

I, however, live in one of those swing states. Ohio to be precise. The same state that put Bush in the White House in 2004.

There is a saying here. "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation". That is not an idle boast. Ohio has an amazing track record when it comes to elections. We have picked the Presidential winner 78% of the time...and no Republican has EVER won the White House without us in their column.

Regardless of the rosy, happy message of the Obama campaign, he has lost not only Ohio, but states with economics and cultures very similar to Ohio. He lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and is currently losing Indiana. In Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania he lost by pretty sharp margins. He doesn't click here very well for reasons that escape me.

Do me a favor. Go onto an electoral map and use a red crayon to color in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Then show me a likely scenario in which Obama can reach the required 270 electoral votes.

Your position here relies on a few shaky premises. 1. You assume that primary votes translate into general election votes which is not the case. 2. Michigan again for the love of God. I'm just going to ignore it. You and Hillary have been destroyed on this enough. This is the same "big states" and "if only the rules of the DNC were different." Until the DNC rules otherwise MI and FL (their results) are worthless. It's not Barack Obama's fault the rules got that way. If the tide was turned you've been screaming your head off and you damn well know it. #almost flamed he/she/it# Now, all better.

Fun bit I just saw on the news.

32% of people polled (probably all Republicans) say that Obama's connection to Wright is a serious issue.

43% say that McCain's relationship to Bush is an issue.

Looks like McCain's buddy is a bigger issue then Obama's.

Oh yeah, right. I'm sure all the "Uncommitted" were there just to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton (sarcasm).

Obama's name wasn't on that ballot, but he was certainly on the minds of voters. Clinton's margin there mirrored those of her wins in other rust-belt states. I think the Obama people have a problem, and they do not want to admit it.

No one else is running and McCain is only getting three quarters of the vote from his own party. Seriously, in NC, Obama didn't end up much worse of than McCain and he had an active and serious opponnent. That's just sad.

McCain isn't the McCain of 2000 and now he is out saying he's going to switch the judicial power strongly into the corner of the religious right. The fears that were so silly in 2000 are becoming very real in 2008. The liberals in this country, particular young liberals and the rich liberals like myself are going to be seriously motivated in the general because this is no longer about which guy you think is amusing or you might want to barbeque with.

To be honest, it's hard for me to correctly judge the sentiment in the US, mainly because I don't live there - I do feel that Democrats consistently underestimate the strength of the right, hence their surprise when Bush won in '04.

Is Barack Obama inspirational enough to win? I'm just not sure he is and I worry that he's simply too far left for America's tastes.

How about this? She couldn't run a remotely good campaign. It took her months to figure what Obama knew right off. Every state. Every voter. She didn't do that and it's going to cost her the Presidency.

I'd add that she was very complacent, similar to Giuliani aside from the fact that he was never going to get it, she had a good chance and she sure blew it.

Well, that's it. The only significant group of votes left to be counted is Lake County. If it is 65-35 it will be a 2 point Obama victory, which is what I would like to see. Sucks for Operation Chaos. What I'm expecting is a bit more realistic 60-40 or perhaps a little less resulting a virtual tie and allowing Clinton to soldier forward while the supers finish voting in the last contest that will make any difference.

Time for bed. I Will pick up the thread tomorrow. God morrow all.

Sorry to pick on you here Silver Star but this is just so common in these threads - first you make the comparison over contested fights and then you say they're not comparable.

Be consistent.

I didn't state that primaries show absolutely nothing about what a state will do in the general. I stated that a primary win does not automatically turn into a general win and vica versa. Does the winner of a primary have at least some advantage in that state come November? Maybe. Is it possible for the other candidate to win that state? Yes. For example, my state, Massachusetts, was won by Hillary Clinton. Would she probably do slightly better there? Yes. Will Obama lose Massachusetts? Heck no, we're virtually a one party state in favor of the Democrats up here.

Oh yeah, right. I'm sure all the "Uncommitted" were there just to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton (sarcasm).

Obama's name wasn't on that ballot, but he was certainly on the minds of voters. Clinton's margin there mirrored those of her wins in other rust-belt states. I think the Obama people have a problem, and they do not want to admit it.

#yawn" Anything new to say?

Oh yeah, right. I'm sure all the "Uncommitted" were there just to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton (sarcasm).

Whyd the vote then? Especially if they were pro-Hillary. She was on the ballot.

Obama's name wasn't on that ballot, but he was certainly on the minds of voters. Clinton's margin there mirrored those of her wins in other rust-belt states.

Show me a single state where Hillary got 70% of the vote.

Also, sure Obama was on the mind of the voters. But he wasnt on the ballot. So why would his supporters go out and vote for him? I know I wouldnt waste my time.

I think the Obama people have a problem, and they do not want to admit it.

Im so temped to sig this for the epic levels of irony.

To be honest, it's hard for me to correctly judge the sentiment in the US, mainly because I don't live there - I do feel that Democrats consistently underestimate the strength of the right, hence their surprise when Bush won in '04.

Go back and look. I wasn't surprised. Nor was I surprised in 2000. Unfortunately, the DNC forgot that people want to like or at least being inspired by the candidate on the ballot. Both Gore and Kerry did neither. Clinton can't do it either.

Is Barack Obama inspirational enough to win? I'm just not sure he is and I worry that he's simply too far left for America's tastes.

I've no doubt in mind he's inspirational enough to win. He's inspirational enough to survive controversy after controversy with virtually unmoved demographics.

Remember that McCain is running on a similar nice guy campaign. McCain has to blow his image to regard Obama like Hillary has. He can't afford to do so. Instead we're going to see a bunch of surrogates attack, but as was shown with the issues of 2004, what candidates say and don't say is more important. It was enough that surrogates went after the swiftboat veterans. Kerry didn't and it cost him the election. Obama has proven that while he won't directly attack a candidate to their face, he will call them out when someone is spreading rumors or creating a problem. He did this directly to Clinton and he'll do it to McCain too.

Obama and Kerry are complete opposites in terms of charisma.



I'd add that she was very complacent, similar to Giuliani aside from the fact that he was never going to get it, she had a good chance and she sure blew it.

Hillary is only up by 1% now that part of Lake county came in. As for Obama expected to win... the RCP average had him down by 5. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

really, I need to go to bed. But this is good news for Obama.

Oh yeah, right. I'm sure all the "Uncommitted" were there just to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton (sarcasm).

Obama's name wasn't on that ballot, but he was certainly on the minds of voters. Clinton's margin there mirrored those of her wins in other rust-belt states. I think the Obama people have a problem, and they do not want to admit it.

Haha. So basically, Obama needs to worry about not being able to win Michigan if the general election requires him not to campaign there, he suddenly becomes virtually unknown again, and he's not on the ballot.

I promise that if Obama is not on the ballot in Michigan in the general that I will concede that he won't win it. Fair enough?

Nigh twenty thousand people in North Carolina have voted no preference...I wonder why.

Hillary is only up by 1% now that part of Lake county came in. As for Obama expected to win... the RCP average had him down by 5. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Lake County is looking to be a little lighter on votes than expected. I'm calculating about 150K. However, the votes are going about 75% Obama, which should make it plenty to overcome the deficit right now. Sweet.

However, as much as we don't want to say it, he is black and is increasingly being seen as voted for by blacks. Even if America was to vote in the most liberal senator in America, will they vote in the most liberal black senator in America?

I've not heard 'Yes we can' for a long time.

It's not a slight on America, I'd say you sure have the best chance of any predominately white country of succeeding at it.

I just see a lot of issues stacking up against Barack Obama when it comes to choosing a president. You might say that only 75% of the R's party is for John McCain but given the actual election, that will most likely change.

Again, my only caveat in my point is that I'm just not attuned to the will of America overall, it annoys me to some extent because these elections are fascinating.

This is all probably for another thread when this nomination process is over, which Lord knows I hope is soon.

Show me a single state where Hillary got 70% of the vote.

arkansas. it's her only obama-esque landslide of the season.

arkansas. it's her only obama-esque landslide of the season.

You mean in her HUSBAND'S state?

Oh.

I just did some calculating to prove my point.

I watch the polls and the composite scores daily (Rasmussen especially), and I get my information from two sources...a site known as "270 to win" and Electoral vote dot com.

If the election were held by these polls today, Hillary Clinton would beat John McCain. But if Barack Obama ran, he would lose to John McCain.

Ironically, both win by the same number: 274 Electoral votes.

Clinton loses Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa to McCain, all of which are states which Obama carries (for 34 electoral votes). But she wins Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio and takes 68 electoral votes. She also wins in Arkansas where she was first lady. Despite an upset in West Virginia (which polls show her winning and Obama losing), she survives to become President.


Obama wins Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. He also pulls off a win in Colorado, where he has consistently shown strength. All of these are states Clinton loses. He loses, however, in Ohio and Florida. He makes a stronger challenge than Clinton in the South, particularly in North Carolina and South Carolina...but it is not enough to break the Republican systemic advantage in those states, which have been voting consistently Republican for decades....the last time EITHER of the Carolinas voted Democrat, for example, was in 1976. Obama might appeal to more people in a Democratic primary, and he may beat Clinton. But when it comes to winning the swing states that will determine who gets the White House, Clinton is showing a narrow but persistent edge. Why? I have no idea. But it is there, and you can interpret it as you will.

Heh. Consistently? He's been shown to do better than her in all but a few recent polls. You'll see that change after tonight, because momentum at this point matters.

And weren't you just a minute ago claiming he couldn't win MI and she could. Not particularly good at keeping your arguments straight?

By the by, I think the headline of the night will be that CBS did it again.

I just calculated. The difference is about a point and a half at this point. This is exciting.

Also, the near final numbers have a clear 15% win in NC. That was practically the same lead he had 2 weeks ago. Sweet.

Nigh twenty thousand people in North Carolina have voted no preference...I wonder why.

I'm going out on a wild, wild guess here, but...

Could it be because they had no preference? Also, 20,000 out of about one and a half million votes is just above one percent. So... What does it actually MEAN?

I'm going out on a wild, wild guess here, but...

Could it be because they had no preference? Also, 20,000 out of about one and a half million votes is just above one percent. So... What does it actually MEAN?

That 20k voters don't care which of the two gets the nom?

That 20k voters don't care which of the two gets the nom?

Well, I actually wanted to point out that it's a very tiny fraction of voters...

Well, that ought to do it. It's looking like it's gonna stick. About 2%. It could still change, but it's probably not going to. It's a good victory for her.

It's still going to be a problem for given the expectations of the day. It looks like she slipped in both states and that's going to hurt. I still predict a wash of supers.

I just calculated. The difference is about a point and a half at this point. This is exciting.

Also, the near final numbers have a clear 15% win in NC. That was practically the same lead he had 2 weeks ago. Sweet.

so whose guess came closest? i mean other than my obvious win with my 'clinton by a million' prediction, which, in my opinion, is totally and irrefutably true.

I'm going to amend. I'm putting Obama at about the same percentage lead in NC as Clinton held in PA. As CTOAN pointed out, it appears Clinton learned a lesson and Obama-esque landslides are a thing of the past for both candidates. I'm sticking on my IN prediction.

So how'd I do? I put IN at 2% for Clinton and Obama at 9.5 or so in NC. So he exceeded my expectations and certainly most other people's.

So how'd I do? I put IN at 2% for Clinton and Obama at 9.5 or so in NC. So he exceeded my expectations and certainly most other people's.

Okay, how long till CanuckHaven and the other guy go "It was only a flesh wound"?

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/jpgs/bknight2.jpg

So how'd I do? I put IN at 2% for Clinton and Obama at 9.5 or so in NC. So he exceeded my expectations and certainly most other people's.

i put down 12% in nc in my second prediction post. did anyone guess higher?

i put down 12% in nc in my second prediction post. did anyone guess higher?

I don't think so. Your predictions were pretty solid.

By my calcs, I've got Obama needing about 70 supers in order for the writing to be on the wall. How many are you predicting this week? I'm going to say we see 10. I'm going to go out on a limb and say we see three defections.