NationStates Jolt Archive

also, i am really jealous of cnn's awesome touch screen vote map thingy. i wants it. though i still want to know why west virginia is yellow on it - it's been that way since february and it makes no sense.

also, i am really jealous of cnn's awesome touch screen vote map thingy. i wants it. though i still want to know why west virginia is yellow on it - it's been that way since february and it makes no sense.

They voted for Itsuki Koizumi, didn't you hear?

They're saying Hillary Clinton's speech had an interesting tone, whereby she promised to fight for the Democrat Party 'no matter what' among other phrases - she's also cancelled her network interviews for tomorrow. It may just be hope on the part of reporters but...

I wonder if an announcement is imminent.

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

'Tis but a scratch!

'Tis but a scratch!

COME BACK HERE! I CAN STILL BITE YOUR ANKLES!

They're saying Hillary Clinton's speech had an interesting tone, whereby she promised to fight for the Democrat Party 'no matter what' among other phrases - she's also cancelled her network interviews for tomorrow. It may just be hope on the part of reporters but...

I wonder if an announcement is imminent.

I think it might have been, but she won IN. It looks like her husband and daughter are about to cry during her speech. She has great bearing, but they are showing their true feelings on their face.

I think it might have been, but she won IN. It looks like her husband and daughter are about to cry during her speech. She has great bearing, but they are showing their true feelings on their face.

Yes, watching it myself, it doesn't seem too subdued.

Out of interest, here is the text of memo put out by Team Clinton - can I call it that EDIT: Doh, there it is in the header: The Clinton Campaign - after today's results

To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: May 6, 2008
RE: Tie-Breaker

In April, Barack Obama called Indiana a ‘tie-breaker’ for the Democratic nominating process: "You know, Sen. Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tiebreaker. So we want to work very hard in Indiana.”

At the time, Senator Obama’s comments seemed to be part of an elaborate plan to lower expectations for the Indiana contest. After all, roughly 20% of Indiana Democratic primary voters have been exposed to Senator Obama for years because they live within the Chicago media market. He’s never lost a state that borders his home-state of Illinois.

The fact that Indiana was an open primary – Republicans and independents can vote in the Democratic contest – also augured well for Senator Obama. He has regularly argued that he should be nominated because he “appeal[s] to Republicans and Independents in a way that none of the other nominees can.”

Throw in the fact that Senator Obama outspent the Clinton campaign by a 2 to 1 margin on Indiana television and Indiana seems to be more of a lean-Obama state than a toss-up.

So Hillary’s victory in Indiana – fought out against the backdrop of an ailing economy – is all the more incredible. We started out behind in both the public and internal polls.

For example, our March 13 poll showed Hillary trailing by 8 points, while our latest poll gave Hillary a 5 point lead.

We saw Hillary Clinton’s margin flip from -19 points among men in Indiana back in March to +1 among men in our final poll. Among women, Hillary’s margin increased from +1 in March to +8 now.

Similarly, in mid-February, the Howey-Gauge poll had Barack Obama 15 points ahead of Hillary Clinton (Feb 16-17: Obama 40 / HRC 25). By April 23-24, Hillary had narrowed the gap to only 2 points in the same poll (Obama 47 / HRC 45). The late momentum was critical – according to the exit poll, Hillary won by 18 points among those who made their decision in the last three days.

Hillary won by appealing to voters in almost every key demographic group. According to the exit poll, Hillary won among men and among women, in northern, central and southern parts of the state, among those who earn more than $50,000 per year and those who earn less, union voters and non-union voters, suburban and rural voters, churchgoers, gun-owners, and those who have not graduated from college.

Hillary also won among those who say the economy is the most important issue, those who are affected by the recession, those who say health care is most important, electability and experience voters. Hillary also led Obama on commander-in-chief.

What drove Hillary’s strong support – especially among downscale voters, suburban and rural voters, churchgoers, gun-owners and those who are affected by the recession?

Gas tax summer holiday – making oil companies pay the gas tax instead of American families through a tax on oil company windfall profits

Tough stance on NAFTA and other trade issues

The only candidate – Democrat or Republican – with a health care plan that covers every American

Support for cutting middle-class taxes

EDIT: Source (http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/05/clinton_spin_memo.html)

In short:


To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: May 6, 2008
RE: Tie-Breaker

It was only a flesh wound.

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?

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious.

I was wondering WHY they had no preference.

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious.

I was wondering WHY they had no preference.

I would guess because there isn't that huge of a difference, at least in their opinion. Is it that surprising that people would be happy with either candidate?

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious.

I was wondering WHY they had no preference.

You're very welcome.

Of course, I was being sarcastic, but...

haha, so with his massive showing tonight obama now needs just 33 more pledged delegates to hit a majority of them. there are 217 of them left. clinton, on the other hand, needs 203 of them. so we've moved to the point where clinton needs to hold obama below the viability threshold in most of the coming races if she were to actually try to stay in this race.

28 dels in wv and clinton takes most of them even if she drops out. then 103 up for grabs in kentucky and oregon the week after. ky is her's too, but between ky and wv he might be able to scrounge up the 33. come damn close, at least. and oregon looks a lot like obama country to me anyways, so he definitely hits it that day.

i wonder if they'll let this play out until then so she can exit in a way perhaps easier on her pride? plus, it wouldn't be so bad to rig it so that the voters wind up putting obama over the top - if the dems could figure out how to coordinate such things...

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.

in the next week? 20, easily, with a significant chance that dean and pals tells them all "game over, time to declare", and we see an absolute flood.

i think we'll see at least a minor flurry of announcements tomorrow, actually.

Yes, watching it myself, it doesn't seem too subdued.

Out of interest, here is the text of memo put out by Team Clinton - can I call it that EDIT: Doh, there it is in the header: The Clinton Campaign - after today's results

[I]To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: May 6, 2008
RE: Tie-Breaker

In April,

In May, Clinton failed :D

I would guess because there isn't that huge of a difference, at least in their opinion. Is it that surprising that people would be happy with either candidate?

Not really, no. That's a good point.

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.

Ha! That'll teach you to listen to me! He won NC by about the same margin as he was sporting before the campaigning began. I should have gone with Zogby, they got Pennsylvania and they were close on both these states (well, they had Obama by 2% with a 4.1% margin of error, so they get Indiana on a technicality.

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 are what we call a sore loser.

As to being arrogant, cold hard numbers back up what is being said.

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.

Clintonites have a hard time with that logic.

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

Actually...that is precisely what they did. On top of that, others stayed home as well because they knew their votes didn't matter and many of those were Obama supporters.

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.

:rolleyes:

You are what we call a sore loser.

As to being arrogant, cold hard numbers back up what is being said.

No, I'm just disgusted with both the Obamites and the McCainites....although I have to say that in my area, the McCain backers have treated me with a lot more civility than the Obama supporters. The Obama supporters seem to have forgotten the fact that both Hillary Clinton and myself have (D) after their name. I know a few people myself who voted for Clinton who, if Obama wins, will either vote for McCain in the fall or who simply will not vote at all. -I- myself am no longer thrilled with the prospect of an Obama candidacy...his supporters have insulted and disrespected me enough to make me consider withdrawing my support if he's the nominee.

Enjoy your victory right now. There are still a few states left to go, and Obama hasn't reached the magic number yet, and Clinton can still catch him in the popular vote.

Actually...that is precisely what they did. On top of that, others stayed home as well because they knew their votes didn't matter and many of those were Obama supporters.



:rolleyes:


Both Obama and Edwards instructed their Michigan supporters to vote "Uncommitted". THAT is why there are so many of them.

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.

Show me your "polls". The ones I am looking at consistently show her with leads in those three key states, whereas for Obama they are tossups.

As for Michigan, you'll notice she doesn't need it to win. When I was calculating states, any state that was a pure tossup I threw to McCain. In other words, this is the "worst case scenario" for Clinton as I view it.

Both Obama and Edwards instructed their Michigan supporters to vote "Uncommitted". THAT is why there are so many of them.

Rush Limbaugh instructed HIS listeners/supporters to vote for Hillary. By your logic - "All of Obama's and McCain's supporters in Michigan followed their orders, despite the fact that they thought it wouldn't count" - it means Hillary got the votes of about ten million "people" (one is not really a person if they regularly listen to Limbaugh) whose intent was ONLY throwing a wrench on the Democratic Party. Using your logic, Hillary should get Michigan. She, however, should lose just about the 10 million people that listen to Limbaugh - By YOUR own logic, because we know these people were there just to screw the process up and followed Limbaugh's orders completely - again, by YOUR logic. So, which will it be?

Rush Limbaugh instructed HIS listeners/supporters to vote for Hillary. By your logic - "All of Obama's and McCain's supporters in Michigan followed their orders, despite the fact that they thought it wouldn't count" - it means Hillary got the votes of about ten million "people" (one is not really a person if they regularly listen to Limbaugh) whose intent was ONLY throwing a wrench on the Democratic Party. Using your logic, Hillary should get Michigan. She, however, should lose just about the 10 million people that listen to Limbaugh - By YOUR own logic, because we know these people were there just to screw the process up and followed Limbaugh's orders completely - again, by YOUR logic. So, which will it be?

Even if you are correct, it doesn't detract from the fact that over 50% of those who voted DID vote for Senator Clinton other than an alternative.

No, I'm just disgusted with both the Obamites and the McCainites....although I have to say that in my area, the McCain backers have treated me with a lot more civility than the Obama supporters. The Obama supporters seem to have forgotten the fact that both Hillary Clinton and myself have (D) after their name. I know a few people myself who voted for Clinton who, if Obama wins, will either vote for McCain in the fall or who simply will not vote at all. -I- myself am no longer thrilled with the prospect of an Obama candidacy...his supporters have insulted and disrespected me enough to make me consider withdrawing my support if he's the nominee.

Enjoy your victory right now. There are still a few states left to go, and Obama hasn't reached the magic number yet, and Clinton can still catch him in the popular vote.

Again, what do his supporters have to do with him? You keep saying this nonsense and it keeps not being just that. His supporters are people. I'm not holding it against Hillary that some of her supporters are racist and have been chanting Obama's middle name. Why? Because Hillary ISN'T racist. She HASN'T done that. It's irrational to punish the entire country because of a small percentage of Obama supporters.

Meanwhile, you keep saying you were "insulted" and "disrespected" but at the time you said this about people in this thread you were giving exactly what you were getting. Suggesting this is a reason to threaten the entire country is, again, irrational.

But, like I said, people should vote with their hearts. If your heart tells you that we need 4 more years of Bush in order to teach a lesson to those uppity Obama supporters, then go for it, champ.

Show me your "polls". The ones I am looking at consistently show her with leads in those three key states, whereas for Obama they are tossups.

As for Michigan, you'll notice she doesn't need it to win. When I was calculating states, any state that was a pure tossup I threw to McCain. In other words, this is the "worst case scenario" for Clinton as I view it.

Kind of missing the point there, didn't you? So you claimed that only Hillary could win MI. Now, according to your polls, she is less likely to win it than Obama (the exact opposite of what you earlier asserted). So... are your polls wrong, were you wrong, or where you just being dishonest when you made that assertion?

Address why you're claims have done a 180 and we'll get to your "polls".

Even if you are correct, it doesn't detract from the fact that over 50% of those who voted DID vote for Senator Clinton other than an alternative.

Just keep grasping at those straws...

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.

True. By "left" I meant "liberal".

Even if you are correct, it doesn't detract from the fact that over 50% of those who voted DID vote for Senator Clinton other than an alternative.

However, and again by YOUR logic, if Michigan should count, she should lose these 10 million votes around the country. So, by all means, let's apply it and see what happens to her candidacy?

Again, what do his supporters have to do with him? You keep saying this nonsense and it keeps not being just that. His supporters are people. I'm not holding it against Hillary that some of her supporters are racist and have been chanting Obama's middle name. Why? Because Hillary ISN'T racist. She HASN'T done that. It's irrational to punish the entire country because of a small percentage of Obama supporters.

Meanwhile, you keep saying you were "insulted" and "disrespected" but at the time you said this about people in this thread you were giving exactly what you were getting. Suggesting this is a reason to threaten the entire country is, again, irrational.

But, like I said, people should vote with their hearts. If your heart tells you that we need 4 more years of Bush in order to teach a lesson to those uppity Obama supporters, then go for it, champ.
But still, it was Hillary who got into the "foul" Republican-style ad hominem talk. Imo, that might be a tactic to draw uncertain old Republicans over the line to vote Democratic. Maybe, with the way she runs her campaign, in combination with her points about things she can get those old Republican voters. That could be an advantage of here over Obama, but should it be appreciated, I think not.

Even if you are correct, it doesn't detract from the fact that over 50% of those who voted DID vote for Senator Clinton other than an alternative.

Again, I think you miss the point. If we're going to make assumptions based on instructions, then Hillary lost a long time ago and only Operation Chaos is keeping her in the race. It's estimated that a 1% in Hillary's direction was due to Republicans flipping hard for Hillary. This holds pretty consistently since Limbaugh gave the instruction. Go back and do that math. You'll find Hillary would have been out of this race long ago.

Or we can cease the idle and unsupported speculation, and accept that no legal contest happened in either MI and FL, and that both contests strongly favored the person who was on both ballots (it's a shame that actually has to be said. It's absolutely and utterly dishonest to call it a fair contest when one of the major contenders wasn't on the ballot.) and the person with the most name recognition. In both cases, that was Clinton. And even so, her showing wasn't spectacular. A contest where you are the only viable candidate and you get 40% of the vote for ANYONE else is an embarrassment, not a victory.

Here's what is so wrong with the Clinton argument.

1. Count all the votes (AKA make every voice heard)

Good argument. Let's see if she believes it. She doesn't count caucus states. She doesn't give any votes to Obama from MI, but when people bring up that 40% of the people voted against her, suddenly those become Obama supporters.

Oh, but that's not all, folks. She also doesn't think the pledged delegates, the only delegates that represent the voting populace need to actually represent those that voted.

2. I've always stood up for making sure no one is disenfranchised.

Good argument. Let's see if it's true. Can anyone tell me... did she refuse to sign the agreement not to campaign in those states? Is there any record of her ever protesting the punishment before she was in trouble in the primaries? The answer to both is no. She also made a statement on the record that she wanted to protect the little states and supported the actions to do so. Her argument is a revision of history.

3. I've always been against NAFTA.

This would be nice if it were true, but unsurprisingly she is again revising history. On the record, all we can see is her support of NAFTA. Now, again, she claims that she was simply helping out the party by supporting her husband. Honestly, I think that's a valid argument, but does anyone notice that when Clinton and the party disagree, she seems to just take a backseat. I mean, that's two times she just did as they wanted with no record of protesting until it benefitted HER, not the people. Not very Presidential.

4. I'm ready from day one.

Is she? She wasn't ready for primaries from day one. Hell, there is a very good argument that she didn't really "get it" until just recently. She had every reason to have closed out this race months ago, but because she assumed it was in the bag and didn't actually get 'ready from day one' now she's losing. Kind of hurts that argument, huh?

5. I'm the candidate of experience. I have 35 years of experience working for the people.

A. This is kind of a stupid argument when you're going to go up against John McCain in the general.
B. The 35 years includes working as a corporate attorney and being First Lady. It's very telling that she doesn't count Obama's charity work as working for the people and as experience, but she counts her work on behalf a corporations.
C. Some of this "experience" has been made up wholesale and she's been caught at it.

6. I'm the underdog.

Hmmm... you're the former First Lady, married to a very popular President. You're a household name. You had oodles of money and most regarded you becoming not only the nominee but the President as a done deal. You had the lead in virtually every state that would have mattered had you closed out the nomination early as you should have and could have done.

You're competing against a guy that a year ago, the majority of people didn't know at all (there were tons of polls showing that people didn't know who he was). Those that did know him outside of IL knew him as the guy who once gave a good speech. This guy comes out of nowhere and starts whooping you like you stole something and you're the underdog.

7. I'm a woman of the people and Obama is elite.

Um, where did you go to college? How much did you make last year?

8. Obama has unsavory connections.

Seriously, this one is just flooring. You're a Clinton. Your brother was accused of taking bids for pardons from your husband. Among those pardoned under your husband were two terrorists from the same organization you accuse Obama of having ties to. You've been accused of several large scandals, most of which stuck. We start playing the who is connected to who game, particulary if we use loose ties the likes of which you're using against Obama, and you're in BIG trouble.

(Shall I keep going?)

True. By "left" I meant "liberal".

I know what you meant, and you're entirely wrong. What America considers liberal is pretty damn conservative in the world. The "liberal" party hasn't had a serious contender for the Presidency EVER who has supported equal rights for everyone.

Jocabia, a lot of Hillary's behavior can be explained by the idea that she believes she is entitled to be President, merely by being a Clinton.

Even Bill believes it's "her turn" to be President.

Jocabia, a lot of Hillary's behavior can be explained by the idea that she believes she is entitled to be President, merely by being a Clinton.

Even Bill believes it's "her turn" to be President.

I believe I speak for most of us when I say I don't give a damn what this crazy, messed up old hag believes: She's now hurting the bigger purpose of preventing the undead known as John McCain from setting paw in the White House.

Edit: Because of happening to type it in this message I just remembered the name of the Corrs song I wanted to find again! Bolded it on the edit! Thanks, Hotwife! :D

Edit 2, side note: Hotwife, I don't think for a second that you agree with Clinton. Nor did I call you an old hag. Because, though Republican, by your name you might be Hot. ;)

I believe I speak for most of us when I say I don't give a damn what this crazy, messed up old hag believes:

Fight against Sexism and Injustice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

No, I'm just disgusted with both the Obamites and the McCainites....although I have to say that in my area, the McCain backers have treated me with a lot more civility than the Obama supporters. The Obama supporters seem to have forgotten the fact that both Hillary Clinton and myself have (D) after their name. I know a few people myself who voted for Clinton who, if Obama wins, will either vote for McCain in the fall or who simply will not vote at all. -I- myself am no longer thrilled with the prospect of an Obama candidacy...his supporters have insulted and disrespected me enough to make me consider withdrawing my support if he's the nominee.

Enjoy your victory right now. There are still a few states left to go, and Obama hasn't reached the magic number yet, and Clinton can still catch him in the popular vote.

So you're going to vote against your own self interest because some people hurt your feelings? What did they do to you that made you so sore? Of course the McCain supporters are going to be nicer to you. Right now there is no emotional battle with McCain. This will not happen until there is a Dem nominee. Republicans by and large think Hillary is the easiest to beat. Listen to the Republicans in the media and what they are saying. There are no other contests that have nearly as many delegates as last night. Also, you're counting on the populations of Kentucky and West Virgina to put her over the top. The probability of Hillary overtaking him in the popular vote is slim to none. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

The upcoming states barely have enough population to turn the popular vote. He leads there by approx 2 points. She will not catch him in any category. Hell, the superdelegates she's only up by 14 there. He is likely to overtake her there. I've already showed the math earlier on how unlikely it would be for her to overtake him in any way.


Shocker -- Republican Pundits Now Prefer Clinton!

Noam links to an interview with Karl Rove, and notes that "Rove is pretty down on Obama, and actually somewhat sympathetic to Hillary. Though he doesn't explicitly say why." Gee, could it be that Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, and Clinton isn't? Can it be a coincidence that last year, when most people thought Clinton's nomination was inevitable, conservative pundits were filled with praise for Obama, and now that his victory is near-inevitable they're changing their tune?

Another good example of this phenomenon is Rove's fellow Fox News analyst Michael Barone, who authors a lengthy column purporting to show that Obama's supporters are "academics," and Clinton's are "Jacksonians." I wrote about what Barone's doing here a couple months ago. Basically, he's taking a cultural mythology conservatives developed during the Bush era--to propogate the idea that Democratic voters are a tiny enclave of decadent intellectuals while their supporters represent the true patriotic volk--and applying it to Clinton and Obama.

Is there any evidence that most, or even a singficant chunk, of Obama's supporters are academics? I doubt it, and Barone offers none. Indeed, the whole concept is mainly a conservative anti-intellectual slur. (Barone claims that Obama "appeals enormously to voters in the academia and public-employee enclaves of America, who want to deny honor to our warriors and arrogate it to themselves.")

Now, it's true that working class whites have generally supported Clinton over Obama, and they have been concentrated in and around Appalachia. Barone assures his readers that this is not because of racial prejudice--"Go back to 1995, and look at the polls that showed that most Americans would support Colin Powell for president," he writes. But we don't have to go back to 1995. We have survey analysis of the very race Barone is describing. A Pew survey last week found:

In particular, white Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.

I don't know if Barone was unaware of the finding, or chose to ignore it because it would complicate his attempts to glorify the virtuous Real Americans who reject Obama.

The Democrats-are-egghead-traitors genre of demographic analysis always contains massive analytic flaws. That's inevitable when you're trying to conflate a large (and often majority) segment of the electorate with a tiny, unrepresentative fringe. Barone's latest effort is especially shoddy. The two most loyal constituencies in the Democratic race are older white feminsists for Clinton, and African Americans for Obama. Are the former really best understood as Jacksonians, and the latter as academics? Of course not. This is just a way of defining Obama's supporters out of the mainstream of American life so as to discredit him. Alas, we're going to see a lot of this tripe through November, and--should Obama win--beyond.

Edit 2, side note: Hotwife, I don't think for a second that you agree with Clinton. Nor did I call you an old hag. Because, though Republican, by your name you might be Hot. ;)

I've never agreed with either Clinton, and have noticed their sense of "entitlement" and "we're above the law and the rules" since their first days in the Oval Office.

I find it tragic that Democrats only recently woke up to the rotting smell.

I actually believe there's something wrong with our method of picking Presidents (and perhaps a problem with the US voting population), since we either get legacy people like Bush or Hillary to run for office, walking dead like Kerry or McCain, or n00bs like Obama (yes, he's a n00b, and a very naive n00b at that).

No one of what I would term "real acumen and intelligence".

*snip a bit*

Here's what is so wrong with the Clinton argument.

1. Count all the votes (AKA make every voice heard)

Good argument. Let's see if she believes it. She doesn't count caucus states. She doesn't give any votes to Obama from MI, but when people bring up that 40% of the people voted against her, suddenly those become Obama supporters.

Oh, but that's not all, folks. She also doesn't think the pledged delegates, the only delegates that represent the voting populace need to actually represent those that voted.

The two are not exclusive - she believes that if all votes were counted, where Barack Obama stood in MI and FL, she'd be on par, regardless of the fact that the votes are so close over what, 60 million, it really comes down to the super delegates...

...who are there to determine who would be best president, not just who would win but who would be the best president, she believes that's her.

2. I've always stood up for making sure no one is disenfranchised.

Good argument. Let's see if it's true. Can anyone tell me... did she refuse to sign the agreement not to campaign in those states? Is there any record of her ever protesting the punishment before she was in trouble in the primaries? The answer to both is no. She also made a statement on the record that she wanted to protect the little states and supported the actions to do so. Her argument is a revision of history.

I dealt with this a long time ago, she was the last to sign, by quite a bit - there's very fair evidence that she had strong doubts but where she thought she'd win anyway, she felt she could sign without too much concern as opposed to run up against the DNC last November, in retrospect a mistake.

3. I've always been against NAFTA.

This would be nice if it were true, but unsurprisingly she is again revising history. On the record, all we can see is her support of NAFTA. Now, again, she claims that she was simply helping out the party by supporting her husband. Honestly, I think that's a valid argument, but does anyone notice that when Clinton and the party disagree, she seems to just take a backseat. I mean, that's two times she just did as they wanted with no record of protesting until it benefitted HER, not the people. Not very Presidential.

One could say Barack Obama has taken a back seat on many senate votes, either not voting or waiting to see which way the wind blows. Added to this, neither will revoke NAFTA, it's political trickery of the sort Barack Obama called her on over gas, something which cost her in IN and SC. This cuts both ways.

4. I'm ready from day one.

Is she? She wasn't ready for primaries from day one. Hell, there is a very good argument that she didn't really "get it" until just recently. She had every reason to have closed out this race months ago, but because she assumed it was in the bag and didn't actually get 'ready from day one' now she's losing. Kind of hurts that argument, huh?

It would have been hard to predict the overwhelming crush America had on Barack Obama back in February.

5. I'm the candidate of experience. I have 35 years of experience working for the people.

A. This is kind of a stupid argument when you're going to go up against John McCain in the general.
B. The 35 years includes working as a corporate attorney and being First Lady. It's very telling that she doesn't count Obama's charity work as working for the people and as experience, but she counts her work on behalf a corporations.
C. Some of this "experience" has been made up wholesale and she's been caught at it.

Possibly, she's been the wife of the President, hard to say she doesn't have strong knowledge of what's required, she's also been through some serious battles, battles that would have defeated other candidates, Barack Obama is just starting to go through that - he's done well admittedly.

6. I'm the underdog.

Hmmm... you're the former First Lady, married to a very popular President. You're a household name. You had oodles of money and most regarded you becoming not only the nominee but the President as a done deal. You had the lead in virtually every state that would have mattered had you closed out the nomination early as you should have and could have done.

You're competing against a guy that a year ago, the majority of people didn't know at all (there were tons of polls showing that people didn't know who he was). Those that did know him outside of IL knew him as the guy who once gave a good speech. This guy comes out of nowhere and starts whooping you like you stole something and you're the underdog.

She's certainly the underdog now, it's hard to deny the enormous support for Obama, support she believes was founded on rhetoric and the idea of 'something different' - she still believes she's the best for the job.

7. I'm a woman of the people and Obama is elite.

Um, where did you go to college? How much did you make last year?

She sure jumped on this, she's practically in a roadside bar with truckers drinking a beer and challenging people to arm wrestling :)

8. Obama has unsavory connections.

Seriously, this one is just flooring. You're a Clinton. Your brother was accused of taking bids for pardons from your husband. Among those pardoned under your husband were two terrorists from the same organization you accuse Obama of having ties to. You've been accused of several large scandals, most of which stuck. We start playing the who is connected to who game, particulary if we use loose ties the likes of which you're using against Obama, and you're in BIG trouble.

I'm going to have to stretch here but she's been tested on these, she's come through unscathed by connection, Barack Obama hasn't yet and, in her view, a risk is being taken on nominating him over nominating her.

Look, a lot of this is point of view and the most important one here is hers, her job is to convince the super delegates of that view.

I don't think she'll win, I certainly don't think she can win the general but there's always two sides to a point of view, even where cold numbers, which don't necessarily equate to the general, are concerned.

Fight against Sexism and Injustice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

If you call me sexist for thinking her sense of entitlement is insane, I'll call you racist for being against Obama.

Or we can argue seriously, with you trying to defend, what? The American Clinton/Bush monarchy?

Look, if you try to argue with me with this level, suffice to say you're in way over your head.

Fight against Sexism and Injustice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

Calling her an old hag makes someone sexist? I can call her a "bitter broad" but that doesn't make me sexist. I am not sexist, racist, or xenophobic, but I can sure as hell tell some funny jokes about myself and others. People here are right, you are grasping at straws. In case you forgot, I'm still here and you have not refuted my math with anything at all. She needs to post 20+ in all remaining contests and even then she might be off. She is next to finished. Maybe you're not responding because "You (I) always come into my threads and....." what? I debate you? I'm sorry for debating you on a debating forum.

Both Obama and Edwards instructed their Michigan supporters to vote "Uncommitted". THAT is why there are so many of them.

and others of us didn't vote in michigan at all, because it didn't count. i can personally attest to this, and anyone who isn't an idiot can tell by looking at the turnout - less than 600k total voted in michigan while obama pulled in more than that by himself in much smaller states like wisconsin and virginia, and clinton and obama each topped that in tiny little republican indiana.

additionally, there are exit polls that asked people how they really would have voted if given the option. and they said:
Clinton 46%
Obama 35%
Edwards 12%
Kucinich 2%
Richardson 1%

turns out a fairly significant part of clinton's vote was from people who actually supported others but decided to vote for a name rather than for 'uncommitted'.

The two are not exclusive - she believes that if all votes were counted, where Barack Obama stood in MI and FL, she'd be on par, regardless of the fact that the votes are so close over what, 60 million, it really comes down to the super delegates...

All votes except for 4 caucus states that she wants to exclude from the popular vote....

She's certainly the underdog now, it's hard to deny the enormous support for Obama, support she believes was founded on rhetoric and the idea of 'something different' - she still believes she's the best for the job.

Suppose you're watching a dog race. There's one dog waaaay out in front and you're pretty sure it's going to win. Then someone else comes from behind and gets out in front. Do you suddenly call the first leader the "underdog"?

I wouldn't.

and others of us didn't vote in michigan at all, because it didn't count. i can personally attest to this, and anyone who isn't an idiot can tell by looking at the turnout - less than 600k total voted in michigan while obama pulled in more than that by himself in much smaller states like wisconsin and virginia, and clinton and obama each topped that in tiny little republican indiana.

additionally, there are exit polls that asked people how they really would have voted if given the option. and they said:
Clinton 46%
Obama 35%
Edwards 12%
Kucinich 2%
Richardson 1%

turns out a fairly significant part of clinton's vote was from people who actually supported others but decided to vote for a name rather than for 'uncommitted'.

And those are EXIT polls, polls which would look different if people thought their votes counted, because, yes, EXIT polls are polls among people that WENT THERE.

The two are not exclusive - she believes that if all votes were counted, where Barack Obama stood in MI and FL, she'd be on par, regardless of the fact that the votes are so close over what, 60 million, it really comes down to the super delegates...

...who are there to determine who would be best president, not just who would win but who would be the best president, she believes that's her.

This doesn't address my argument. She does NOT want to count all popular votes. She intentionally discounts some popular votes to make her argument and she'd like for other popular votes not to be considered by the delegates that represent that she might win. You've not addressed this. At all.

I dealt with this a long time ago, she was the last to sign, by quite a bit - there's very fair evidence that she had strong doubts but where she thought she'd win anyway, she felt she could sign without too much concern as opposed to run up against the DNC last November, in retrospect a mistake.

Like I said, she has a history of not standing up unless it's in her personal interest. Your claim supports mine.

One could say Barack Obama has taken a back seat on many senate votes, either not voting or waiting to see which way the wind blows. Added to this, neither will revoke NAFTA, it's political trickery of the sort Barack Obama called her on over gas, something which cost her in IN and SC. This cuts both ways.

NAFTA doesn't need to be revoked. It needs to be amended. There is a giant loophole that hurts workers and Obama seeks to correct it.

It would have been hard to predict the overwhelming crush America had on Barack Obama back in February.

She shouldn't have to. She should have just run a campaign. She didn't. She played +1 politics and it killed her chance for victory.

Possibly, she's been the wife of the President, hard to say she doesn't have strong knowledge of what's required, she's also been through some serious battles, battles that would have defeated other candidates, Barack Obama is just starting to go through that - he's done well admittedly.

I don't disagree. I think her time in the White House helped her. I think his time in the state senate helped him. I think his time working for the community helped him. I think either they should both count experience that wasn't as a Washington politician or not.

I've often said if she said she's got 16 years of experience, I'd likely not call her on it. However, instead she says 35 which includes all of her years as a corporate attorney.

She's certainly the underdog now, it's hard to deny the enormous support for Obama, support she believes was founded on rhetoric and the idea of 'something different' - she still believes she's the best for the job.

You don't become the underdog in the middle of the fight. You simply become the person losing.

She sure jumped on this, she's practically in a roadside bar with truckers drinking a beer and challenging people to arm wrestling :)

Agreed.

I'm going to have to stretch here but she's been tested on these, she's come through unscathed by connection, Barack Obama hasn't yet and, in her view, a risk is being taken on nominating him over nominating her.

No, she wasn't and didn't. She's not had a real challenge yet either. Neither of them have. And I don't consider that a problem if you can weather attacks. But if you give strength to the idea that poor associates disqualify you, then she loses. Because she's got some terrible associates. Much more damning that anything Obama has. The only thing that's saved her is that Obama hasn't gone there and the media considers her the loser, so they tend to not care too much (see her Iran comments).

Look, a lot of this is point of view and the most important one here is hers, her job is to convince the super delegates of that view.

I don't think she'll win, I certainly don't think she can win the general but there's always two sides to a point of view, even where cold numbers, which don't necessarily equate to the general, are concerned.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that supers, like everyone else, see the flaw in her argument. In the end, she had to prove she could beat someone in a challenged race. He's proven he can and she's proven she can't.

She's a good candidate and has run a good campaign. If McCain was nearly as strong as she is, I'd be concerned. He's not and that Obama bested her bodes well.

All votes except for 4 caucus states that she wants to exclude from the popular vote....

Millions voted in Texas in the popular vote, 65% of the delegates, about 40, 000 voted in the caucuses, 35% of the vote - I can see her point.

Suppose you're watching a dog race. There's one dog waaaay out in front and you're pretty sure it's going to win. Then someone else comes from behind and gets out in front. Do you suddenly call the first leader the "underdog"?

I wouldn't.

It's not a great fit as an analogy really, imagine a heavy favorite at the starting gate but, when the gates opened, it's realised one dog is on steroids...

...still a poor analogy.

In absolutely no way can I see her taking the nomination, even if super delegates who've pledged themselves to Barack Obama change their minds, in a bizarre decision that effectively loses the black vote for many elections to come, it means they lose the general.

I quite liked the article posted by Hotwife brought forward a little, as in this coming week, whereby Barack Obama announces that he offered the VP position to Hillary Clinton and she declined, that she's pulling out of the race. Then the stage is set for her to make a glorious speech announcing her joy in having fought such an opponent, her determination to fight for him and her desire for a Democratic presidency that holds positions so close to hers.

I think that would obliterate John McCain's chances.

Millions voted in Texas in the popular vote, 65% of the delegates, about 40, 000 voted in the caucuses, 35% of the vote - I can see her point.

Texas is the only state that had both a caucus and a primary - and the primary is generally the result used to calculate the popular vote totals. In states like Oregon, there was only a caucus. By cutting out the caucus results from 4 states, she is actually cutting those states completely out of the popular vote.

Millions voted in Texas in the popular vote, 65% of the delegates, about 40, 000 voted in the caucuses, 35% of the vote - I can see her point.

the point being that fewer people vote in caucuses and therefore they don't count?

Texas is the only state that had both a caucus and a primary - and the primary is generally the result used to calculate the popular vote totals. In states like Oregon, there was only a caucus. By cutting out the caucus results from 4 states, she is actually cutting those states completely out of the popular vote.

Well, she didn't explicitly say they didn't count towards delegate totals did she? She simply didn't consider them worth fighting for because she thought she'd have won by Super Tuesday and that they didn't factor for her, she was wrong but to say she was 'cutting out the caucus results' is a bit strong compared to totally cutting two entire states, important ones at that. I doubt she fought too hard in a couple other states where Barack Obama was clearly going to win. I certainly don't think MI and FL should just be included on the ballot, merely showing the comparison is not fair.

the point being that fewer people vote in caucuses and therefore they don't count?

Of sorts, more that it's a skewed proportion - again with the absolutes.

Well, she didn't explicitly say they didn't count towards delegate totals did she?

No. She explicitly left them out when calculating popular vote totals.

She makes a big fuss about "every vote should count" and tries to claim that she is ahead or even in the popular vote (as a way to sway superdelegates) when she is excluding 4 states to get those numbers.

No. She explicitly left them out when calculating popular vote totals.

She makes a big fuss about "every vote should count" and tries to claim that she is ahead or even in the popular vote (as a way to sway superdelegates) when she is excluding 4 states to get those numbers.

Oh lordy, I missed this story completely during my time of waning interest, how tragic - it's not even worth pointing out that DNC rules don't count them when DNC rules don't count MI and FL either, even despite the fact these caucuses represent votes, you could argue Texas as double votes but...

Lordy...

Both Obama and Edwards instructed their Michigan supporters to vote "Uncommitted". THAT is why there are so many of them.

Yep. Thanks for confirming my point.

Fight against Sexism and Injustice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

First of all, writing really big isn't an argument. Perhaps the reason people are "mistreating" you is that you're shouting at them and calling them sexists and the root of injustice.

Second, you do realize that some words are gender specific. That those same words are used by people who are upset with a person of a certain gender doesn't make them a sexist. It means they know how our language works.

This article in slate says what I have already stated mathematically. Clinton would need to win over 70% (I said Barack could take 30% ftw) of the remaining superdelegates to win. The math is nearly impossible. Her argument that she's more electable has all but gone down the drain. The only chance she'd have of competing would be a "what if?"

She should have won this handily by Super Tuesday. She had everything in her favor. she had superior name recognition, residency in the white house with Bill, and her "35 years" of experience. She had been "battle-tested" and was able to "stand up" to the Republicans. She was ready to serve "on day one" as CinC. Even with all of this she is losing to what was a little named junior senator from Illinois. Who was most notable in his speech at the 2004 convention and not much else. He is a "raving liberal" who she should have put away with her populist, centrist message (Center right if you ask me). Hillary Clinton deserves to lose for these and many other reasons. To claim she is more electable after he has dismantled her is silly. To claim this with the type of negative ratings she has is just ignorant. It was her race to lose and she did just that. This is America, the land I love.

Edit: link and article (http://www.slate.com/id/2190780/)

Since the remaining contests are not likely to change the count, attention now turns almost exclusively to the uncommitted superdelegates who will be necessary to give either candidate a victory. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has picked up 100 superdelegates at a pace of 5 to 1 over Clinton. To win now, Clinton would have to reverse that dynamic. She'd have to take 70 percent of the remaining superdelegates and then ask them to reverse the will of the elected delegates and deny an African-American the nomination.

The picture was already grim for Hillary Clinton going into Tuesday. If she'd won in Indiana and North Carolina, it would have only minimally changed the daunting math, but victories would have given fresh evidence to present to undecided superdelegates that Obama had an irreparable flaw, that the good voters of Indiana and North Carolina recognized that and voted accordingly.

She didn't get that evidence. The exit polls give her some data to make her case, but not as much as she needs. Clinton's aides will continue to press the case that Obama has a problem he can't solve among white working-class men. He tried very hard after Pennsylvania, tweaking his message to appeal to the economic concerns of regular people and shrinking his stadium-size rallies to show a more approachable side. Still, white voters with no college degree went for Clinton 65 percent to 34 percent. "The composition of his vote remains the same," said a Clinton aide. "He didn't resolve the issues that have dogged him, namely his ability to expand his base beyond African-American voters and liberal rich eggheads."

That those same words are used by people who are upset with a person of a certain gender doesn't make them a sexist. It means they know how our language works.

I does? Thanks yaw! :D

(Just for the record, in case anyone actually tries to argue that I made a mistake, it was a JOKE.)

Oh lordy, I missed this story completely during my time of waning interest, how tragic - it's not even worth pointing out that DNC rules don't count them when DNC rules don't count MI and FL either, even despite the fact these caucuses represent votes, you could argue Texas as double votes but...

Lordy...

Phew. I was reading your replies and I was thinking, what the hell? Now I see it. Yeah, there was a big thing about how they were ahead after PA. It was entirely predicated on counting MI with no votes toward Obama and discounting four caucus states. Shady, shady stuff.

Phew. I was reading your replies and I was thinking, what the hell? Now I see it. Yeah, there was a big thing about how they were ahead after PA. It was entirely predicated on counting MI with no votes toward Obama and discounting four caucus states. Shady, shady stuff.

It's just stupid. How many intelligent voters does she think she's fooling with this crap? She may get rubes to follow her, but not supers.

It's just stupid. How many intelligent voters does she think she's fooling with this crap? She may get rubes to follow her, but not supers.

elitist!

Tooth and Nail (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-assess7-2008may07,0,5898310.story)...

Yep, she's gone back to that old chestnut, Michigan and Florida. We all heard it in her marginal victory speech in Indiana-as we always do when she takes a beating. This is how grim it is-
In fact, Clinton's chance to overtake Obama in the number of elected delegates probably disappeared with her lopsided loss in North Carolina. And to overtake Obama in the popular vote, she would probably have had to post a large margin of victory in Indiana.

That is why Clinton in the last day has begun talking about raising the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination -- in essence, moving the goal line in the nominating process.
...
But Clinton has started to argue that 2,209 delegates are needed to win.

Her claim is that the party should seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of participating in the nomination fight as punishment for moving their primary election dates earlier than allowed. That argument, of course, benefits Clinton, who won both states handily and would win a large share of their combined 366 delegates, allowing her to dig into Obama's lead.
...
Looming larger than the remaining primary votes in states including West Virginia, Oregon and South Dakota is a May 31 meeting in Washington, D.C., in which a key Democratic Party committee will decide how to handle the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan.

Activists from both states are challenging last year's decision to strip the states of seats at the nominating convention. The Clinton campaign is pressuring the committee to reinstate the states' delegates, and to use the January primary results in those states to decide the breakdown.

The Obama camp says this amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game.
And the grimest of all-

Clinton appears to have some built-in advantages on the 30-member committee. Two of its members are campaign staffers, including rules guru Harold Ickes, and both are prepared to vote to reinstate Florida and Michigan, even though they voted last year to strip the delegations.

Thirteen of the committee members have endorsed Clinton's candidacy, whereas eight have endorsed Obama. Nine remain neutral.
Italicized by me to emphasize hypocrisy and opportunism.

Hope?
Several committee members and other party insiders predicted Tuesday that the committee is most likely to seat half of the delegations, a decision that would give Clinton a net gain, but not enough to change the outcome of the nomination.

Nope-
Clinton could then appeal in July to a larger committee, with power over who gets admitted to the August convention. The full membership of that so-called credentialing committee is not yet known, and it is not clear which candidate would have the upper hand.

Meanwhile, the floodgates might have opened... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/May/07/mcgovern__former_clinton_backer__urges_her_to_drop_out.html)
Former Sen. George McGovern, who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton, is urging her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race.

McGovern said Wednesday he has decided to endorse Barack Obama.

After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern says it's virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination.

This is my first reply in this thread, but there's something I really feel needs to be adressed more, indeed as often as possible.

The thing that disturbs me about this campaign is the extraordinarly bias coverage of the campaign. Remember when Hillary accused the media of going to easy on Obama? Well, they've been hammering him ever since. That alone is reason enough not to like her. We don't need a President who expects the media to fall in line at her command.

Take for example the "issue" of Reverend Wright. How many hours of coverage over the last two months to somethings said by a man who used to be Obama's pastor? But when Clinton is personaly caught in a lie, its news for a few days, if that. And Mcain gets a free ride on his religeous affilliations. Liberal Media my ass.

CNN also seemed to largely ignore the fact that Clinton's victory in Indianna was due entirely to the Republicans who voted in the primary for her. In short people who most likely fully intend to vote Mcain in November, and were following Rush Limbau's advice to undermine the Democrats. Obama won Indianna's Independants and Democrats.

I just thought that point needed to be made absolutly clear.:)

Meanwhile, the floodgates might have opened... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/May/07/mcgovern__former_clinton_backer__urges_her_to_drop_out.html)

though we should note that he isn't a super

not that it matters, as tpm (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/obama_rollout_of_superdels_beg.php) has 3 new ones for obama and somewhere i saw that we already have a switcher.

edit: ah, here we are
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_el_pr/superdelegates_1

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/report-clinton-loans-herself-64-million/

Clinton loaned her campaign another 6.4 million dollars.

I guess those campaign funds she received after PA wasn't enough.

And Mcain gets a free ride on his religeous affilliations.He has a shrill, America-hating nut for a pastor too, I take it?

CNN also seemed to largely ignore the fact that Clinton's victory in Indianna was due entirely to the Republicans who voted in the primary for her. In short people who most likely fully intend to vote Mcain in November, and were following Rush Limbau's [sic] advice to undermine the Democrats.That's quite an accusation. Would you care to prove it?

He has a shrill, America-hating nut for a pastor too, I take it?
The pastors whose support he sought out have also said that 9/11 happened because of America's sins, among other nutty nuggets.

though we should note that he isn't a super

not that it matters, as tpm (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/obama_rollout_of_superdels_beg.php) has 3 new ones for obama and somewhere i saw that we already have a switcher.

edit: ah, here we are
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_el_pr/superdelegates_1

Heh, I called 10 with 3 switching. I'm on my way. Six more days. Hello, nomination.

No, I'm just disgusted with both the Obamites and the McCainites....although I have to say that in my area, the McCain backers have treated me with a lot more civility than the Obama supporters. The Obama supporters seem to have forgotten the fact that both Hillary Clinton and myself have (D) after their name. I know a few people myself who voted for Clinton who, if Obama wins, will either vote for McCain in the fall or who simply will not vote at all. -I- myself am no longer thrilled with the prospect of an Obama candidacy...his supporters have insulted and disrespected me enough to make me consider withdrawing my support if he's the nominee.

Remember, back a bit ago, when you made that big long post for us to support each other no matter who wins, because we have to beat John McCain? Remember that? Does civility and a united front go out the window when your candidate loses?

Enjoy your victory right now. There are still a few states left to go, and Obama hasn't reached the magic number yet, and Clinton can still catch him in the popular vote.

Wait wait wait. I thought the popular vote didnt matter? Thats what Team Billary have been saying for some time now...

He has a shrill, America-hating nut for a pastor too, I take it?

Yeah, Rev. Wright hates America so much that he served in the Marine Corps. I mean, how dare he say that 9/11 was a result of our foreign policy! Honesty is unpatriotic! :rolleyes:

John McCain, on the other hand, actively sought the endorsement of a man who says that 9/11 was God punishing America for being sinful and tolerant of homosexuality.

I think that's a tad worse, no?

Civility, united front... let all the rest join together; I can't bring myself to vote for either McCain or Clinton, and I have serious problems with Obama. It's the choice between the lesser of two evils once again (three at the moment, but I don't believe Clinton can really make it through.)

Maybe that's just the nature of politics here. Still, I refuse to vote for a candidate who I feel has practically spit in my face with the views they uphold and their astounding hypocrisy.

Wait wait wait. I thought the popular vote didnt matter? Thats what Team Billary have been saying for some time now...

Not to mention it would take a miracle of biblical proportions for her to catch Obama in the popular vote.

That's quite an accusation. Would you care to prove it?

Check my math here.

According to CNN, there are 1,274,985 votes counted in Indiana's Democratic primary.

Of those, according to the exit poll, 10% were Republican. She got 54% of the votes of those Republicans.

So that's 1,274,985*.1*.54 = ~ 68,849 votes by Republicans for Clinton. That total comes to 5.4% of the total votes.

If we take the Republicans out completely, we lose 68,849 votes for Clinton and 58,649 votes for Obama.

The totals votes then would be:

Clinton: 575,741
Obama: 571,746

There's probably some rounding error and exit polls aren't exact, but that would come out to:

Clinton: 50.2%
Obama: 49.8%


So it's really not too far off to say that she won because of Republican crossover vote. Now, was that vote because of Rush Limbaugh's campaign to screw up the Democrats? That's another question. Given the fact that, in elections prior to him pushing that idea, Republican crossover vote tended to be a much smaller percentage and to break in favor of Obama, it's probably pretty likely that many of them were doing it to screw with the Democratic nominee process. But there's no guarantee there.

Wow, that's interesting.

Remember, back a bit ago, when you made that big long post for us to support each other no matter who wins, because we have to beat John McCain? Remember that? Does civility and a united front go out the window when your candidate loses?



Wait wait wait. I thought the popular vote didnt matter? Thats what Team Billary have been saying for some time now...

And there's the Obama arrogance again.

If Hillary Clinton wants to fight you people all the way to the convention, I'm perfectly happy to back her up. It's still possible, although unlikely, that the Superdelegates will choose her regardless of the election results. It's clear that Barack Obama mortally wounded her last night, but I'll stick to my guns until it's all over.

The only way I will enthusiastically support Obama at this point is if Clinton herself throws her support behind him. The behavior of Obama's supporters (such as you) has turned my formerly positive impression of him into a negative one. You people did a hatchet job on the first real woman contender for President, and a candidate who I happened to like a great deal. I will vote for Obama in November, but don't expect me to volunteer to help him or to send money to him (like I did for Kerry in 2004), or to be happy about the outcome of the election either way. To quote GlaDOS, "You broke my heart".

I am convinced that my support will matter little. Obama is going to take the nomination if things continue as they are...yet I've not heard a single Obama-supporter answer my concerns about the Big Three. In an Obama/McCain matchup, McCain has the edge in Florida, loses to Obama in Pennsylvania, and Ohio is a tossup (whereas Clinton has an edge in all three). You may win this battle, but that isn't the war. If we are sitting up on election night and we see Ohio and Florida turn red, then Barack Obama loses. If you think you're going to offset losses in the Swing States by taking Southern States out of the McCain column, you're fooling yourselves.

And there's the Obama arrogance again.

If Hillary Clinton wants to fight you people all the way to the convention, I'm perfectly happy to back her up. It's still possible, although unlikely, that the Superdelegates will choose her regardless of the election results. It's clear that Barack Obama mortally wounded her last night, but I'll stick to my guns until it's all over.

The only way I will enthusiastically support Obama at this point is if Clinton herself throws her support behind him. The behavior of Obama's supporters (such as you) has turned my formerly positive impression of him into a negative one. You people did a hatchet job on the first real woman contender for President, and a candidate who I happened to like a great deal. I will vote for Obama in November, but don't expect me to volunteer to help him or to send money to him (like I did for Kerry in 2004), or to be happy about the outcome of the election either way. To quote GlaDOS, "You broke my heart".

I am convinced that my support will matter little. Obama is going to take the nomination if things continue as they are...yet I've not heard a single Obama-supporter answer my concerns about the Big Three. In an Obama/McCain matchup, McCain has the edge in Florida, loses to Obama in Pennsylvania, and Ohio is a tossup (whereas Clinton has an edge in all three). You may win this battle, but that isn't the war. If we are sitting up on election night and we see Ohio and Florida turn red, then Barack Obama loses. If you think you're going to offset losses in the Swing States by taking Southern States out of the McCain column, you're fooling yourselves.

1- That means you'd be glad to see her rip the Democratic Party apart, thus denying the presidency for EITHER Democrat and sentencing the world to another four years of an accursed Republican in the White House.

2- You seem to assume she'll win ANY of those states with the biggest rejection rate a politician's ever had. Whereas Obama DOES have chances in some southern states. States she herself can't win.

3- Unless she comes clean about her willingness to destroy the Democrats and quite possibly the WORLD for her ego and misguided notion of birthright, she will support Obama. That should be enough to get him the edge he needs even in the states you claim he "can't" win because he lost to her on the primaries. Little tip for you: Hillary won Indiana. That doesn't mean she would against McCain. Obama lost New York. That doesn't mean he would against McCain.

4- Get that through your head: If Hillary gets handed the nomination AGAINST ALL VOTES, she will LOSE. Because a LARGE part of the Democratic base will NOT support her.

5- You use the expressions "Obama arrogance", among several others, and you get all prissy when we argue with you with a normal, usual approach in this forum. So, what the fuck is your point? That YOU get to insult us and WE don't get to argue with you? Or else you'll do WHAT? Vote for the guy you KNOW is wrong for your country to spite people in a forum?

Yeah, Rev. Wright hates America so much that he served in the Marine Corps. I mean, how dare he say that 9/11 was a result of our foreign policy! Honesty is unpatriotic! :rolleyes:Did he have to pepper his "honesty" with chants of "God damn America!" and accusations that America created AIDS to commit genocide against blacks?

John McCain, on the other hand, actively sought the endorsement of a man who says that 9/11 was God punishing America for being sinful and tolerant of homosexuality.He actively sought the endorsement of a dead man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell#September_11th_attacks)?

If you're referring to Hagee, however -- who has made some ugly remarks in the course of his own career -- it's doubtful McCain knew anything about Hagee's screwy beliefs when he was "actively" seeking his endorsement (since no one gave a shit about Hagee until the Wright story broke). And he certainly wasn't McCain's friend and pastor for 20 years.

Now, was that vote because of Rush Limbaugh's campaign to screw up the Democrats? That's another question. Given the fact that, in elections prior to him pushing that idea, Republican crossover vote tended to be a much smaller percentage and to break in favor of Obama, it's probably pretty likely that many of them were doing it to screw with the Democratic nominee process. But there's no guarantee there.Like I said, you can't prove all those Republicans were only voting to screw Obama. Otherwise, it's like you're saying Republicans have no right to vote in an open primary.

Besides, even if GOP voters were voting at Rush's behest, his little scheme didn't work. Hillary barely won, and the pressure is on for her to drop out.

And there's the Obama arrogance again.

It's interesting that you've so continually and broadly attacked Obama supporters while complaining every time anyone, you know, sticks to the subject and talks about your candidate. Do you know what hypocrisy is?

SOME people have insulted you. From what I can see, you've ensured that you've earned it. You've used this to broad brush all of Obama's supporters, and worse, it's the crux of your attack on Obama. Once again, I'll ask, what the hell do these supporters have to do with Obama's credentials for President? I've asked this several times and you've ignored the questions, instead choosing to attack Obama by way of using gross generalizations about his supporters.



If Hillary Clinton wants to fight you people all the way to the convention, I'm perfectly happy to back her up. It's still possible, although unlikely, that the Superdelegates will choose her regardless of the election results. It's clear that Barack Obama mortally wounded her last night, but I'll stick to my guns until it's all over.

The only way I will enthusiastically support Obama at this point is if Clinton herself throws her support behind him. The behavior of Obama's supporters (such as you) has turned my formerly positive impression of him into a negative one. You people did a hatchet job on the first real woman contender for President, and a candidate who I happened to like a great deal.

Again, back this up with evidence? Where was this "hatchet job"? Hillary, herself, has continually said "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Are you now claiming that the same heat she was telling Obama was just "vetting" is now unfair? Be specific. No more broad complaints. What exactly did people do that was unfair?


I will vote for Obama in November, but don't expect me to volunteer to help him or to send money to him (like I did for Kerry in 2004), or to be happy about the outcome of the election either way. To quote GlaDOS, "You broke my heart".

I am convinced that my support will matter little. Obama is going to take the nomination if things continue as they are...yet I've not heard a single Obama-supporter answer my concerns about the Big Three. In an Obama/McCain matchup, McCain has the edge in Florida, loses to Obama in Pennsylvania, and Ohio is a tossup (whereas Clinton has an edge in all three). You may win this battle, but that isn't the war. If we are sitting up on election night and we see Ohio and Florida turn red, then Barack Obama loses. If you think you're going to offset losses in the Swing States by taking Southern States out of the McCain column, you're fooling yourselves.

Oh, goodness. Florida has been red for two seasons. He's set to win PA. He's set to win IA, WI, CO, MI (which she isn't). Even VA is now purple. Don't tell me that doesn't make up for OH and, possibly FL. If she happens to squeeze out FL, that only gives her a 47 elector advantage over Obama. Obama brings that back with the 43 from IA, WI, CO, MI. That's not including all the other states that Obama turns purple without even having a democratic candidate selected and with people like you currently wildly threatening to punish the country because your favorite didn't win.

He has a shrill, America-hating nut for a pastor too, I take it?


Shrill? Shrill??? have you ever heard the man speak?

And I wouldn't say that Rev. Wright hates america. Rather that he is Pissed at America.

And there's the Obama arrogance again.

You people did a hatchet job on the first real woman contender for President, and a candidate who I happened to like a great deal.

Hillary did a hatchet job on herself. Not to mention the fact that she and her entire campaign are trying as hard as they possibly can to sabotage Obama as if to leave the Democrats with no other choice, under the pretense that "we don't want something coming out about him in October." Hillary (and Bill's) tactics have been underhanded and tremendously damaging to their own party.

Thank God I'm an independent. I didn't register as a Democrat in 2004, though I did vote for Kerry, another character I despised utterly but supported because he was running against George W. Bush. At their cores, however, both parties are rotten with corruption and hypocrisy. That's the fate of all established political parties, I guess.

It's interesting that you've so continually and broadly attacked Obama supporters while complaining every time anyone, you know, sticks to the subject and talks about your candidate. Do you know what hypocrisy is?

SOME people have insulted you. From what I can see, you've ensured that you've earned it. You've used this to broad brush all of Obama's supporters, and worse, it's the crux of your attack on Obama. Once again, I'll ask, what the hell do these supporters have to do with Obama's credentials for President? I've asked this several times and you've ignored the questions, instead choosing to attack Obama by way of using gross generalizations about his supporters.





Again, back this up with evidence? Where was this "hatchet job"? Hillary, herself, has continually said "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Are you now claiming that the same heat she was telling Obama was just "vetting" is now unfair? Be specific. No more broad complaints. What exactly did people do that was unfair?




Oh, goodness. Florida has been red for two seasons. He's set to win PA. He's set to win IA, WI, CO, MI (which she isn't). Even VA is now purple. Don't tell me that doesn't make up for OH and, possibly FL. If she happens to squeeze out FL, that only gives her a 47 elector advantage over Obama. Obama brings that back with the 43 from IA, WI, CO, MI. That's not including all the other states that Obama turns purple without even having a democratic candidate selected and with people like you currently wildly threatening to punish the country because your favorite didn't win.

Ohio and Florida account for 47 electoral votes, or almost one in five of those required to win the Presidency. If you lose those two states, you have to win literally every state in the Kerry-coalition and THE some.

I again ask for your numbers (or more specifically where they are coming from) about this fantastic sea of purple you are talking about. The Kerry-coalition (which lost Ohio and Florida) only won 251 electoral votes even though he only lost by 3,011,595 votes. I don't care how broad Obama's appeal is. If you lose those swing states, your only hope is to take Republican strongholds in the South...and if you can't win the swing states, how likely is it that? The swing states are called such because they're the best shots you have to pick up votes. And this is assuming you sweep in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. If McCain wins ANY of those states, your plans are in trouble.

If you lose Ohio and Florida, then you are going to lose the election with near-certainty. It's possible to win without them, but the situation you postulate is a perfect-storm style situation.

Of course, I'm just talking into the wind here. The nomination has more or less been decided by the media, and Obama will be that nominee. For better or for worse, the die is cast.

And there's the Obama arrogance again.


Why is it that anytime someone points out that you are either a hypocrit or full of it this is your only defense? Its not arrogance, its telling you to actually use some substance.


Or is debating with substance arrogant and elitest? That would be a very Hillary view, and I still think you are one of her speech writers or something, as you repeat her talking points verbatum. So it would make sense.


ps- I prefer the term "dick" to being "arrogant" thank you. But either way, youre right in both accusations with me. However, not every Obama supporter thinks like me.

The only way I will enthusiastically support Obama at this point is if Clinton herself throws her support behind him.

wow. just, wow.

You people did a hatchet job on the first real woman contender for President, and a candidate who I happened to like a great deal.

are you even watching the same campaign we have been?

I've not heard a single Obama-supporter answer my concerns about the Big Three. In an Obama/McCain matchup, McCain has the edge in Florida, loses to Obama in Pennsylvania, and Ohio is a tossup (whereas Clinton has an edge in all three). You may win this battle, but that isn't the war. If we are sitting up on election night and we see Ohio and Florida turn red, then Barack Obama loses. If you think you're going to offset losses in the Swing States by taking Southern States out of the McCain column, you're fooling yourselves.

according to current numbers, clinton would have to play defense in a pile of the kerry states, while obama would get to play offense in lots of places while having to defend relatively few. there is such a thing as a realignment, you know.

Did he have to pepper his "honesty" with chants of "God damn America!" and accusations that America created AIDS to commit genocide against blacks?

I hope conservatives never stop this little chant. If there is anything that is going to gel Obama's message that politics have become about the petty rather than the important it's the ravings of people terrified of Obama's middle name and that Obama's pastor said some stuff they didn't like.

Obama is going to pull most of the Kerry voters, people who weren't swayed when Kerry was called unpatriotic. They aren't going to be swayed by such nonsense. Obama will have an energized youth vote, an energized black vote. Also, not going to be swayed by this nonsense. And you're going to see the most energized woman's vote in decades, because while there was a small threat of abortion being outlawed again in 2000 and 2004, it's a reality according to McCain. He's come out about judges (incidentally a complete flip-flop from his positions in the past... FLIP-FLOPPER).

Hmmm... throw the weight of women, minorities, the young and add it to the performance in the past two elections. Not hard to fathom why conservatives are terrified. Their reign is over and none too soon. Democrats are setting records in the primaries alone. The presumptive GOP nominee has a quarter of a very weak turnout refusing to back him when there are no other contenders.

CNN has the superdelegates down to a differential of 10 in favor of Clinton.

Since it's pretty much 99.9999998019384% certain that Obama will get the nomination, I am just going to put a nice comfy pillow right at the edge of my seat and start planning the massive party I am going to throw if Obama wins in November.

I expect to have a perma-grin for weeks afterwards.

Since it's pretty much 99.9999998019384% certain that Obama will get the nomination, I am just going to put a nice comfy pillow right at the edge of my seat and start planning the massive party I am going to throw WHEN Obama wins in November.

I expect to have a perma-grin for weeks afterwards.

Fixed.

Fixed.

I wanted to type "when" so bad and of course you make excellent points about why McCain can easily be shown to be unelectable, but there are two reasons I didn't.

I have little faith in the intelligence of my fellow countrymen.

I didn't want to jinx anything.

I wanted to type "when" so bad and of course you make excellent points about why McCain can easily be shown to be unelectable, but there are two reasons I didn't.

I have little faith in the intelligence of my fellow countrymen.

I didn't want to jinx anything.

I also usually say when, but Im still not convinced that the Democratic Party wont find some way to screw it up.

Ohio and Florida account for 47 electoral votes, or almost one in five of those required to win the Presidency. If you lose those two states, you have to win literally every state in the Kerry-coalition and THE some.

Um...Kerry lost the election Shalrirorchia.

I again ask for your numbers (or more specifically where they are coming from) about this fantastic sea of purple you are talking about. The Kerry-coalition (which lost Ohio and Florida) only won 251 electoral votes even though he only lost by 3,011,595 votes.

Take a look at the states that he won and compare them to what he lost. Population is the key.

elitist!

Doesn't elite mean good? :p

Well it's been interesting, I guess Hillary Clinton is holding out on the hope that wins in the next few states will bolster her, that in some way it will make up for the disappointment of SC and, in part, IN.

Old George McGovern withdrew his support, the shift simply seems unbearable.

I think she'll rue certain errors. I truly feel she had grave doubts over MI and FL back in November, I think, seasoned as she is, she understood the consequences in terms of disenfranchising two states out of what seems to be petty spite by the DNC although she could not have understood the consequences of losing the delegates for the nomination.

I think she'll rue not winning Iowa, not putting much time in, it shot Barack Obama into public consciousness, provided a relief for the unease over her candidacy and, a few tears regardless, gave him huge momentum, especially after the NH speech - Yes we can - and the following wave of adoration.

I think she'll rue not reining in her husband, especially his remarks that served to lose her any black votes she might have had, I think it was North Carolina.

Even then I'd say she had some chance, if she'd done better in SC and IN then I think, suicidal as it would have been for the DNC, she might have snatched it but that Gas Holiday, so clearly a political play - to sit on TV and say all the economists were wrong...I think it killed her chances.

Finally, I think what really sits underneath all these, and what I think has been the most interesting, has been the hordes of posters on the Internet, on both sides, that have shifted the media I feel. Aside from the individual debates that were won and lost, the media took a lot of direction from Internet buzz - I think it signals a real change in politics and it allowed for huge dissection of the numbers, the claims, the speeches.

No one can look to the future and think they can run the media like before, the media has a strong new influence in how it reports. We're all part of it.

So I think, for me, that's been the strongest factor here, the younger vote came out in droves, I hope it continues in the general.

Doesn't elite mean good? :p

Apperantly not in politics....


I dont know about the rest of you, but Id like my president to be smarter then me. Id like my president to be smarter then most people.


Meaning Id like my president to be "elite".

Um...Kerry lost the election Shalrirorchia.



Take a look at the states that he won and compare them to what he lost. Population is the key.

I am well aware of who lost the election. I am saying that if you want to win without Ohio and Florida, you have to hold literally every state that Kerry DID win and then add quite a few more. And none of the states that are left are prime targets for a flip from red to blue. Obama's people are talking all big about how they intend to challenge McCain in states that Clinton wouldn't, but she wouldn't for a reason. The South and the West are Republican country. And what happens if McCain does better than expected somewhere? Suppose he takes Michigan out of your column, as Michigan is shown to be very competitive (even more so, now that the Clinton request to count their votes has been denied). Do you care to propose how you might win the election if McCain picks off Ohio, Florida, and then for good measure Michigan?

Apperantly not in politics....
I dont know about the rest of you, but Id like my president to be smarter then me. Id like my president to be smarter then most people.
Meaning Id like my president to be "elite".

Go back to Iran, Communist!

But for reals, I'll never understand America's anti-intellectualism, not that we're free of it north of the border.

Obama will have an energized youth vote, an energized black vote.

speaking of which, did anybody notice that the number of people who came out for yesterday's indiana democratic primary was hundreds of thousands more than came out for kerry in the 2004 general election? shit, they nearly topped bush's numbers. in a fucking primary! that's unheard of.

I am well aware of who lost the election. I am saying that if you want to win without Ohio and Florida, you have to hold literally every state that Kerry DID win and then add quite a few more.

Um...the Dems can win without Florida and Obama will be campaigning hard in Ohio. So that's mute.

And none of the states that are left are prime targets for a flip from red to blue.

Says you.

Obama's people are talking all big about how they intend to challenge McCain in states that Clinton wouldn't, but she wouldn't for a reason.

That's because Obama has been in nearly every state while Clinton has erected firewall after firewall and she is well behind him.

The South and the West are Republican country.

Define the West. California, Oregon, and Washington will go for Obama. There are other states that could go Obama, including Missouri. Pennyslvania and probably New York will also go for Obama. Granted that is one midwest and two Northeastern States. Colorado could go OBama as could New Mexico and Arizona (ok! probably not Arizona :D)

And what happens if McCain does better than expected somewhere?

Like where?

Suppose he takes Michigan out of your column, as Michigan is shown to be very competitive (even more so, now that the Clinton request to count their votes has been denied).

Source?

Do you care to propose how you might win the election if McCain picks off Ohio, Florida, and then for good measure Michigan?

Do you care to propose how you might win an election when your faculties are not all there?

Apperantly not in politics....


I dont know about the rest of you, but Id like my president to be smarter then me. Id like my president to be smarter then most people.


Meaning Id like my president to be "elite".
To quote Jon Stewart, "The job you're applying for, if you do it well, they might carve you into the side of a mountain..."

I wanted to type "when" so bad and of course you make excellent points about why McCain can easily be shown to be unelectable, but there are two reasons I didn't.

I have little faith in the intelligence of my fellow countrymen.

I didn't want to jinx anything.

I think it's funny you talk about intellect and then immediately about "jinxing anything". Hehe.

I am well aware of who lost the election. I am saying that if you want to win without Ohio and Florida, you have to hold literally every state that Kerry DID win and then add quite a few more. And none of the states that are left are prime targets for a flip from red to blue. Obama's people are talking all big about how they intend to challenge McCain in states that Clinton wouldn't, but she wouldn't for a reason. The South and the West are Republican country. And what happens if McCain does better than expected somewhere? Suppose he takes Michigan out of your column, as Michigan is shown to be very competitive (even more so, now that the Clinton request to count their votes has been denied). Do you care to propose how you might win the election if McCain picks off Ohio, Florida, and then for good measure Michigan?

Let's see, currently Obama is ahead in IA which Kerry lost. That makes 258- 280. And Colorado. That makes 267-271. That's just two states Kerry didn't win that Obama will. That means ANY other shift we discuss, ANY, will be a win for Obama. And there are a dozen of places to look at. Ohio, Florida, Virginia just to name a few. In VA, Obama is already polling better than McCain. That makes the victory 280-258.

So, yes, I care to propose how he might win the election without OH and FL. See, because Obama doesn't play the silly +1 game and competes in EVERY state, McCain is going to have defend states that aren't usually in play with way less money, and quite a bit less energy and no infrastructure in place to do so. He HAS to do this because otherwise you will see the biggest landslide of down ballot candidates ever. Republicans will be devestated. So he's going to have to focus on too many states and be on the defensive in an election where his party is horribly disfavored. He might protect the down ballot, but the Presidency already has a D on it.

Um...the Dems can win without Florida and Obama will be campaigning hard in Ohio. So that's mute.

Says you.

That's because Obama has been in nearly every state while Clinton has erected firewall after firewall and she is well behind him.

Define the West. California, Oregon, and Washington will go for Obama. There are other states that could go Obama, including Missouri. Pennyslvania and probably New York will also go for Obama. Granted that is one midwest and two Northeastern States. Colorado could go OBama as could New Mexico and Arizona (ok! probably not Arizona :D)

Like where?

Source?

Do you care to propose how you might win an election when your faculties are not all there?

You are overconfident. You overestimate Obama's reach and underestimate John McCain's. This is going to be close.

I sincerely hope you people know what the hell you are doing, because if you are wrong, you have thrown away our best shot for winning in November.

And there's the Obama arrogance again.

If Hillary Clinton wants to fight you people all the way to the convention, I'm perfectly happy to back her up. It's still possible, although unlikely, that the Superdelegates will choose her regardless of the election results. It's clear that Barack Obama mortally wounded her last night, but I'll stick to my guns until it's all over.

The only way I will enthusiastically support Obama at this point is if Clinton herself throws her support behind him. The behavior of Obama's supporters (such as you) has turned my formerly positive impression of him into a negative one. You people did a hatchet job on the first real woman contender for President, and a candidate who I happened to like a great deal. I will vote for Obama in November, but don't expect me to volunteer to help him or to send money to him (like I did for Kerry in 2004), or to be happy about the outcome of the election either way. To quote GlaDOS, "You broke my heart".

I am convinced that my support will matter little. Obama is going to take the nomination if things continue as they are...yet I've not heard a single Obama-supporter answer my concerns about the Big Three. In an Obama/McCain matchup, McCain has the edge in Florida, loses to Obama in Pennsylvania, and Ohio is a tossup (whereas Clinton has an edge in all three). You may win this battle, but that isn't the war. If we are sitting up on election night and we see Ohio and Florida turn red, then Barack Obama loses. If you think you're going to offset losses in the Swing States by taking Southern States out of the McCain column, you're fooling yourselves.

I'll go through bold by bold.

1. KOL getting tiffy with you is not Obama's arrogance. You simply are transfering your feelings for him to Obama. There are many people who support Clinton (who was that ass on CNN last night?) who are a bit arrogant.

2. You can enthusiastically support Obama because as Hillary said last night, "No matter what the outcome I will work for the Democratic nominee so we can put a Democrat in the White House!" There's all the support you need.

3. When have you been positive about him? Hell, your first posts breaking onto the political boards was all about how he was the devil for what he was doing. Don't play the act now like we can't go back and see your posting history.

4. Boo hoo innocent Hillary got slimed by Obama. Hillary did nothing to him and he's such a meanie. I don't care that she is a woman. I don't care that Obama is black. I don't care that McCain is white. I am voting for the person I think is best. Aren't you doing the same?

5. The "big three" argument has been covered here in multiple threads. Primary results do not equal general votes. The polls in May when the dem nom is not locked up do not reflect the way the polls will be come November. You're following the "what if" that Hillary is selling now that she's behind.

Let's see, currently Obama is ahead in IA which Kerry lost. That makes 258- 280. And Colorado. That makes 267-271. That's just two states Kerry didn't win that Obama will. That means ANY other shift we discuss, ANY, will be a win for Obama. And there are a dozen of places to look at. Ohio, Florida, Virginia just to name a few. In VA, Obama is already polling better than McCain. That makes the victory 280-258.

So, yes, I care to propose how he might win the election without OH and FL. See, because Obama doesn't play the silly +1 game and competes in EVERY state, McCain is going to have defend states that aren't usually in play with way less money, and quite a bit less energy and no infrastructure in place to do so. He HAS to do this because otherwise you will see the biggest landslide of down ballot candidates ever. Republicans will be devestated. So he's going to have to focus on too many states and be on the defensive in an election where his party is horribly disfavored. He might protect the down ballot, but the Presidency already has a D on it.

Your overconfidence is STAGGERING.

As Clinton showed you in Pennsylvania, money isn't everything. You outspent her three-to-one and had a huge ground game in operation and she still whomped you there.

And what if you lose Iowa? Or more likely Colorado? All you Obama-people seem to talk about is what you are going to do to John McCain. Has it not yet occurred to you that he can do stuff back?

You are overconfident. You overestimate Obama's reach and underestimate John McCain's. This is going to be close.

I sincerely hope you people know what the hell you are doing, because if you are wrong, you have thrown away our best shot for winning in November.

Dropped a few arguments there.

You said all of the red states are out of reach. You're wrong. Nevada is in play. It was in play with a terrible candidate and Obama is much stronger. Virginia is in play. Iowa is pretty much already in the D column. Colorado is in play. Despite what you think, Ohio is in play. Hell, if the amount of primary voters that outnumbered the actual voters in 2004 is any indication, IN is in play, too.

So that's 60 electoral votes in play that the Republicans won in 2004. All of them favor Obama right now, except IN and OH. Obama only needs to swing a third. Maybe you didn't notice but in the last four years there's been a blue shift.

This season you have a stronger candidate and a much larger base. Even better, he's facing a much less popular candidate.

Apperantly not in politics....


I dont know about the rest of you, but Id like my president to be smarter then me. Id like my president to be smarter then most people.


Meaning Id like my president to be "elite".

Hilarious! You want a president to be smart then(than) you and you'll get your wish. Sorry, I just wanted to snicker at your misuse of grammar. Carry on.

I'll go through bold by bold.

1. KOL getting tiffy with you is not Obama's arrogance. You simply are transfering your feelings for him to Obama. There are many people who support Clinton (who was that ass on CNN last night?) who are a bit arrogant.

2. You can enthusiastically support Obama because as Hillary said last night, "No matter what the outcome I will work for the Democratic nominee so we can put a Democrat in the White House!" There's all the support you need.

3. When have you been positive about him? Hell, your first posts breaking onto the political boards was all about how he was the devil for what he was doing. Don't play the act now like we can't go back and see your posting history.

4. Boo hoo innocent Hillary got climed by Obama. Hillary did nothing to him and he's such a meanie. I don't care that she is a woman. I don't care that Obama is black. I don't care that McCain is white. I am voting for the person I think is best. Aren't you doing the same?

5. The "big three" argument has been covered here in multiple threads. Primary results do not equal general votes. The polls in May when the dem nom is not locked up do not reflect the way the polls will be come November. You're following the "what if" that Hillary is selling now that she's behind.

This just ain't "What if", buddy. Although I will be the first to admit that polls are not everything, there's a definite trend here. The board on 270 To Win shows that Clinton has somewhat fewer "Strong Democrat" states than Obama, but that Clinton has a LOT more "Swing Democrat" states than Obama. Similarly, The Votemaster's page has consistently shown her winning in big swing states that Obama loses. The math is somewhat frightening.

And I DID vote for the best person for the job. I voted for Clinton. We don't need more inexperience in the White House...and she would have brought Bill's ideas and expertise back with her. In the rush for "change", the Obamacrats have thrown out a very formidable woman.

Your overconfidence is STAGGERING.

As Clinton showed you in Pennsylvania, money isn't everything. You outspent her three-to-one and had a huge ground game in operation and she still whomped you there.

Whomped me? You know I'm not Obama, right? Meanwhile, unlike McCain, Clinton was favored in PA and Obama cut that lead in half. McCain is behind in PA to any democrat.


And what if you lose Iowa? Or more likely Colorado? All you Obama-people seem to talk about is what you are going to do to John McCain. Has it not yet occurred to you that he can do stuff back?

You realize that Iowa and Colorado were Red in 2004. He wouldn't be gaining anything. Meanwhile, McCain isn't even popular within his own party. And, fortunately, in trying to gain ground within his party he has to openly admit to goals that are going to energize the Dem vote. He clearly said he's trying to swing the courts and that's going to bring out women and minorities for Obama in droves.

McCain has been campaigning unopposed for two months and still isn't showing a win against Obama in the most difficult time in Obama's campaign. If McCain can't come up strong now, when Obama is fighting attacks from all sides, then McCain is in trouble. Wait till he has to stand toe to toe with one of the most energizing candidates in a long time. In fact, the only candidate who compares in the ability to energize is currently losing to him.

Suppose he takes Michigan out of your column, as Michigan is shown to be very competitive (even more so, now that the Clinton request to count their votes has been denied). Do you care to propose how you might win the election if McCain picks off Ohio, Florida, and then for good measure Michigan?
Get real. Speaking as a Detroiter, I would be VERY resentful if the so-called Michigan delegation was "counted". I did go out and vote (for Kucinich), so did my dad (for "nobody"), but a lot of people who didn't want Hillary didn't bother to go out and vote because we were assured it was not going to count. Hillary is not going to win Michigan if there is an opponent on the ballot. She lost every single precinct in Detroit, to "nobody". She won backstate rural counties that are going to be mostly Republican in November regardless of who's on the ballot. A Democrat does not win Michigan without a large turnout in Detroit, and nothing would kill turnout in Detroit like Hillary claiming she "won" Michigan.

Hilarious! You want a president to be smart then(than) you and you'll get your wish. Sorry, I just wanted to snicker at your misuse of grammar. Carry on.

*snicker* Pot, this is kettle.

This just ain't "What if", buddy. Although I will be the first to admit that polls are not everything, there's a definite trend here. The board on 270 To Win shows that Clinton has somewhat fewer "Strong Democrat" states than Obama, but that Clinton has a LOT more "Swing Democrat" states than Obama. Similarly, The Votemaster's page has consistently shown her winning in big swing states that Obama loses. The math is somewhat frightening.

And I DID vote for the best person for the job. I voted for Clinton. We don't need more inexperience in the White House...and she would have brought Bill's ideas and expertise back with her. In the rush for "change", the Obamacrats have thrown out a very formidable woman.

Not thrown out. We chose someone else. You seem to take this personally, but basically you seem to think that anyone choosing someone else is somehow slighting Hillary. She lost. It's not "her turn" as Bill claimed.

As far as "inexperience", you realize that Bill Clinton and Ronny Reagan were "inexperienced" in Washington, right?

Your overconfidence is STAGGERING.

As Clinton showed you in Pennsylvania, money isn't everything. You outspent her three-to-one and had a huge ground game in operation and she still whomped you there.

And what if you lose Iowa? Or more likely Colorado? All you Obama-people seem to talk about is what you are going to do to John McCain. Has it not yet occurred to you that he can do stuff back?

Let's take a look at that "whomping." Here is a little wiki that shows the number of states each candidate won, by state, and by significance of their margin of victory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

PA was a good win, but she got beat by far more than that margin last night alone. Obama has won the majority of delegates by a margin of %30 or more
15 times. He's won the popular vote by more than 30 points in 13 states. You want to talk about ass whoopings and be serious?

Look again as shown here. http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/main/democrats
Who takes the beating best?

Your overconfidence is STAGGERING.

As Clinton showed you in Pennsylvania, money isn't everything. You outspent her three-to-one and had a huge ground game in operation and she still whomped you there.
Jocabia is not a member of Obama's campaign, nor is he a resident of Pennsylvania. He didn't do anything in Pennsylvania, in the same way that someone wearing a jacket for a particular sports team are not part of that team and do not get credit for their wins or loses.

Obama closed a rather large gap in Pennsylvania while suffering what Clinton had hoped were crippling blows to his 'electability.' While she caught on to how the campaign works too late, she attempted to close a gap riding the continued bad news for Obama and momentum from Ohio and Pennsylvania of the same size and did not.

And what if you lose Iowa? Or more likely Colorado? All you Obama-people seem to talk about is what you are going to do to John McCain. Has it not yet occurred to you that he can do stuff back?
And this somehow doesn't apply to Clinton? Yes, a lot can happen between now and November. The difference is that Obama has a fifty state infrastructure and the ability to play all fifty states. What you keep either ignoring or missing or not getting is the down ballot effect. McCain is running for the presidency, but the Republicans are also trying to gain back seats in congress, or at the very least not lose more seats and perhaps lose the ability to filibuster. We've already seen in special elections Obama's ability to help down ballot candidates. That means that even in states where Obama might not win, he will help down ballot candidates. What Jocabia, what a lot of people have been telling you, is that this forces McCain to defend states where he wouldn't normally have to if he was facing a candidate playing the +1 game. Where this would leave McCain run thin on an already troubled campaign (more people think a relationship with Bush is a hindrance than people who think Wright is one). Obama is able to contest more states while McCain is forced to play defense. Yeah, he can do something, and he will. Just like he would to Clinton. At least with Clinton he'd have the comfort of knowing that she's only after 'the states that matter' and doesn't have to defend his own backyard.

Democrats played the +1 game and have lost. Clinton played the +1 game in the primaries and lost. It wasn't something the mean ol' Obama supporters did, she wasn't done wrong, she ran her campaign and lost. It's an failed strategy, and insisting that the failed strategy is somehow stronger next time is silly.

You are overconfident. You overestimate Obama's reach and underestimate John McCain's. This is going to be close.

No doubt it is going to be close. If you want to know something about me right now, I was a registered Republican. I had to switch so I could vote for Barack Obama in the PA Primary and I will be glad to cast my vote for him in the General Election.

I sincerely hope you people know what the hell you are doing, because if you are wrong, you have thrown away our best shot for winning in November.

If you people get your way, you sure as hell would have thrown the Dems. best shot at winning.

Your overconfidence is STAGGERING.

As Clinton showed you in Pennsylvania, money isn't everything. You outspent her three-to-one and had a huge ground game in operation and she still whomped you there.

She won by 9 points when she was up by 20 earlier. A whompin' my ass.

And what if you lose Iowa? Or more likely Colorado? All you Obama-people seem to talk about is what you are going to do to John McCain. Has it not yet occurred to you that he can do stuff back?

Ever stop to consider that Hillary cannot win Colorado or many other states because she's a moron?

I'll go through bold by bold.

1. KOL getting tiffy with you is not Obama's arrogance. You simply are transfering your feelings for him to Obama. There are many people who support Clinton (who was that ass on CNN last night?) who are a bit arrogant.

Thats the kicker too, I dont even know what Im doing to upset her so much, other than point out how shes said things in the past that shes now contradiction.

Maybe Im just such a jackass that I dont even know when Im doing it anymore. Which is possible.

Oh, and Joc already beat me to the other thig I was going to fuck with, you post correcting my grammer;)

Not thrown out. We chose someone else. You seem to take this personally, but basically you seem to think that anyone choosing someone else is somehow slighting Hillary. She lost. It's not "her turn" as Bill claimed.

As far as "inexperience", you realize that Bill Clinton and Ronny Reagan were "inexperienced" in Washington, right?

Emotional response forthcoming.

It -was- her turn. But not because of any sense of entitlement that she did (or did not) have. We were one step away from putting up the woman who had the best shot of ANY woman ever in this country when it comes to matters of the Presidency. There will not be another woman in politics like her for some time to come, and I do not think Hillary Clinton will get another chance (unlike Obama, who is far younger). I do not expect you to respect or even understand me in this matter. In 2000, I felt like destiny had been switched to a side track while we were not looking. I felt that the country had gone WRONG at that very moment, and it's not been the same since. I have already stated a plethora of perfectly logical reasons why I felt Clinton was the better choice. I now add an illogical, emotional reason. I felt she was the One. I felt that she offered the opportunity to put us back on the track that we should have been on before. I don't get that feeling about Obama, perhaps in part because of his relative inexperience, and in part because he seems more inclined to negotiate with Republicans than to defend my values. Before the voting began, it felt like the Clinton machine was going to slam the door on the Bush era once again, like it did before. I had CONFIDENCE in that, because both Bill and Hill are known quantities, and they did damn well for this country. Bill was a politician through and through, to be sure, but he went out and DID things that helped people. It stung worse than anything to have Obama launch volley after volley smearing Hillary as "the politics of the past", because Hillary and Bill have some grand redeeming qualities that compensate for the fact that they are career politicians. Hells! Obama himself is a career politician, though he of course does not speak of it. I am not a woman...but I wanted a woman President, badly. I had great hopes. Obama's meteor dashed those hopes, and I do not expect another woman to rise like Clinton did in my lifetime. Nor do I expect Clinton to get a second chance; Obama will not pick her as his vice-presidential candidate (though he would command my loyalty easily if he did so), and she will have passed her political peak by the time he leaves office (assuming he wins). This was her only shot, and you will excuse me for being embittered as I watch the whole cause I believed in fall apart.

This just ain't "What if", buddy. Although I will be the first to admit that polls are not everything, there's a definite trend here. The board on 270 To Win shows that Clinton has somewhat fewer "Strong Democrat" states than Obama, but that Clinton has a LOT more "Swing Democrat" states than Obama. Similarly, The Votemaster's page has consistently shown her winning in big swing states that Obama loses. The math is somewhat frightening.

And I DID vote for the best person for the job. I voted for Clinton. We don't need more inexperience in the White House...and she would have brought Bill's ideas and expertise back with her. In the rush for "change", the Obamacrats have thrown out a very formidable woman.

You do know that the reason we are seeing this is because there are 2 candidates running and not one.

I think it's funny you talk about intellect and then immediately about "jinxing anything". Hehe.


hey I never said I was smart

besides, you have no idea, the universe loves to work against me

Emotional response forthcoming.

It -was- her turn.

The voters said differently.

We were one step away from putting up the woman who had the best shot of ANY woman ever in this country when it comes to matters of the Presidency. There will not be another woman in politics like her for some time to come

dude, you've just got a crush

also, she already broke the dam. it gets easier for somebody else next time.

The voters said differently.

Did they? When last I'd checked, there were few votes between them...only a few hundred thousand popular and a few hundred delegates.

And the voters have made mistakes before, and I believe they just did so again.

dude, you've just got a crush

also, she already broke the dam. it gets easier for somebody else next time.

I will believe it when I see it.

Emotional response forthcoming.

It -was- her turn. But not because of any sense of entitlement that she did (or did not) have. We were one step away from putting up the woman who had the best shot of ANY woman ever in this country when it comes to matters of the Presidency.

So? I don't get this line of argument. I don't care she's a woman. I would care if she were pink. Similar with Obama. It's friggin' sexist to claim anyone is or should have supported her candidacy because she's a woman. Similar with Obama and being black. He's got a similar claim to history and, given the relative positions of blacks and women in this country, perhaps a better argument for the value of such a position. But the fact is, it's irrelevant. This is the POTUS. It should be the best candidate, not the one that extends the groups we choose from. And there are plenty of viable women. Women who have dedicated their lives to politics, not switched over to it when their husband had hit run out of positions.


There will not be another woman in politics like her for some time to come, and I do not think Hillary Clinton will get another chance (unlike Obama, who is far younger). I do not expect you to respect or even understand me in this matter. In 2000, I felt like destiny had been switched to a side track while we were not looking. I felt that the country had gone WRONG at that very moment, and it's not been the same since. I have already stated a plethora of perfectly logical reasons why I felt Clinton was the better choice. I now add an illogical, emotional reason. I felt she was the One. I felt that she offered the opportunity to put us back on the track that we should have been on before. I don't get that feeling about Obama, perhaps in part because of his relative inexperience, and in part because he seems more inclined to negotiate with Republicans than to defend my values. Before the voting began, it felt like the Clinton machine was going to slam the door on the Bush era once again, like it did before. I had CONFIDENCE in that, because both Bill and Hill are known quantities, and they did damn well for this country. Bill was a politician through and through, to be sure, but he went out and DID things that helped people. It stung worse than anything to have Obama launch volley after volley smearing Hillary as "the politics of the past", because Hillary and Bill have some grand redeeming qualities that compensate for the fact that they are career politicians. Hells! Obama himself is a career politician, though he of course does not speak of it. I am not a woman...but I wanted a woman President, badly. I had great hopes. Obama's meteor dashed those hopes, and I do not expect another woman to rise like Clinton did in my lifetime. Nor do I expect Clinton to get a second chance; Obama will not pick her as his vice-presidential candidate (though he would command my loyalty easily if he did so), and she will have passed her political peak by the time he leaves office (assuming he wins). This was her only shot, and you will excuse me for being embittered as I watch the whole cause I believed in fall apart.

My response to the rest is screw that track. We've been watching a series of candidates for decades that have just compounded the problems in this country. Clinton I put in NAFTA and "don't ask, don't tell". He catered to corporations like every President since Kennedy. He wasn't a bad guy. He was just a typical politician. I don't want to back on a +1 politics, catering to lobbyist kind of track. People talk about how Clinton I reached out, but he didn't. We saw the rise of Republican power under Clinton and it was because he was actually quite polarizing. And we saw Bush reverse that trend and cause Democrats to grow their influence everywhere but the Presidency.

Don't believe me? Look at the number of Dem governors when Clinton became President and when he left. Senators? Representatives? Hell, check local politics. You'll see a strong trend.

Politics as usual has given us this wobbling path that delivers President after President that doesn't represent the people. And, frankly, I hope we've been put off that path. And, thanks to Obama, I dare to hope, something that was pretty much dead in regards to the Presidency.

Emotional response forthcoming.

It -was- her turn. But not because of any sense of entitlement that she did (or did not) have. We were one step away from putting up the woman who had the best shot of ANY woman ever in this country when it comes to matters of the Presidency. There will not be another woman in politics like her for some time to come, and I do not think Hillary Clinton will get another chance (unlike Obama, who is far younger). I do not expect you to respect or even understand me in this matter. In 2000, I felt like destiny had been switched to a side track while we were not looking. I felt that the country had gone WRONG at that very moment, and it's not been the same since. I have already stated a plethora of perfectly logical reasons why I felt Clinton was the better choice. I now add an illogical, emotional reason. I felt she was the One. I felt that she offered the opportunity to put us back on the track that we should have been on before. I don't get that feeling about Obama, perhaps in part because of his relative inexperience, and in part because he seems more inclined to negotiate with Republicans than to defend my values. Before the voting began, it felt like the Clinton machine was going to slam the door on the Bush era once again, like it did before. I had CONFIDENCE in that, because both Bill and Hill are known quantities, and they did damn well for this country. Bill was a politician through and through, to be sure, but he went out and DID things that helped people. It stung worse than anything to have Obama launch volley after volley smearing Hillary as "the politics of the past", because Hillary and Bill have some grand redeeming qualities that compensate for the fact that they are career politicians. Hells! Obama himself is a career politician, though he of course does not speak of it. I am not a woman...but I wanted a woman President, badly. I had great hopes. Obama's meteor dashed those hopes, and I do not expect another woman to rise like Clinton did in my lifetime. Nor do I expect Clinton to get a second chance; Obama will not pick her as his vice-presidential candidate (though he would command my loyalty easily if he did so), and she will have passed her political peak by the time he leaves office (assuming he wins). This was her only shot, and you will excuse me for being embittered as I watch the whole cause I believed in fall apart.

Okay, so:

1- You have few logical reasons to support her.

2- You support her in big part on account of her having a vagina.

3- And yet you will not only claim to be the holder of The Truth (tm) to the point of snapping at anyone that disagrees with you with claims of arrogance. Not considering the very valid arguments everyone here has made against overturning the will of the people.

So I have to ask:

1- Do you have anything beyond a sense of entitlement (The One) to support Hillary?

2- If I get Obama to perform a gender reassignment surgery, will you suddenly decide he's the better candidate?

3- And you call US arrogant?

Did they? When last I'd checked, there were few votes between them...only a few hundred thousand popular and a few hundred delegates.

And the voters have made mistakes before, and I believe they just did so again.

Too bad we let voters decide who becomes the President. Stupid voters what with their getting in the way of (manifest) destiny.

Did they? When last I'd checked, there were few votes between them...only a few hundred thousand popular and a few hundred delegates.

And the voters have made mistakes before, and I believe they just did so again.

What, now Obama has to beat a spread? Was there a secret Clinton handicap we didn't know about? (actually now that I think about it there was, she had an early and substantial Superdelegate lead that Obama has also overcome, not to mention 20 point leads going into the primary and the name of the most popular Democratic president in recent times...and yet she still is insurmountably behind...I have to keep asking, how can she make the electability argument if she can't manage to win this election?)

I will believe it when I see it.

believe what? that a serious and credible female contender now makes it easier for a woman to take the top spot later? that's the way it always works for these sorts of things.

Did they? When last I'd checked, there were few votes between them...only a few hundred thousand popular and a few hundred delegates.

Which means exactly what I said. The voters feel differently.

And the voters have made mistakes before, and I believe they just did so again.

Or on the flip side, I believe they didn't. I believe they made the correct choice.

Okay, so:

1- You have few logical reasons to support her.

2- You support her in big part on account of her having a vagina.

3- And yet you will not only claim to be the holder of The Truth (tm) to the point of snapping at anyone that disagrees with you with claims of arrogance. Not considering the very valid arguments everyone here has made against overturning the will of the people.

So I have to ask:

1- Do you have anything beyond a sense of entitlement (The One) to support Hillary?

2- If I get Obama to perform a gender reassignment surgery, will you suddenly decide he's the better candidate?

3- And you call US arrogant?

Oh to HELL with you. You're the type of Obamaphile who is currently, gleefully driving moderate Democrats such as myself into the McCain camp. I think as a whole you've bought into something that isn't as substantial as it seems. We'll see come November. If Obama is defeated and McCain becomes President, you can expect me to come back and say, "I told you so."

Emotional response forthcoming.

It -was- her turn. But not because of any sense of entitlement that she did (or did not) have. We were one step away from putting up the woman who had the best shot of ANY woman ever in this country when it comes to matters of the Presidency. There will not be another woman in politics like her for some time to come, and I do not think Hillary Clinton will get another chance (unlike Obama, who is far younger). I do not expect you to respect or even understand me in this matter. In 2000, I felt like destiny had been switched to a side track while we were not looking. I felt that the country had gone WRONG at that very moment, and it's not been the same since. I have already stated a plethora of perfectly logical reasons why I felt Clinton was the better choice. I now add an illogical, emotional reason. I felt she was the One. I felt that she offered the opportunity to put us back on the track that we should have been on before. I don't get that feeling about Obama, perhaps in part because of his relative inexperience, and in part because he seems more inclined to negotiate with Republicans than to defend my values. Before the voting began, it felt like the Clinton machine was going to slam the door on the Bush era once again, like it did before. I had CONFIDENCE in that, because both Bill and Hill are known quantities, and they did damn well for this country. Bill was a politician through and through, to be sure, but he went out and DID things that helped people. It stung worse than anything to have Obama launch volley after volley smearing Hillary as "the politics of the past", because Hillary and Bill have some grand redeeming qualities that compensate for the fact that they are career politicians. Hells! Obama himself is a career politician, though he of course does not speak of it. I am not a woman...but I wanted a woman President, badly. I had great hopes. Obama's meteor dashed those hopes, and I do not expect another woman to rise like Clinton did in my lifetime. Nor do I expect Clinton to get a second chance; Obama will not pick her as his vice-presidential candidate (though he would command my loyalty easily if he did so), and she will have passed her political peak by the time he leaves office (assuming he wins). This was her only shot, and you will excuse me for being embittered as I watch the whole cause I believed in fall apart.

Very nice, I doubt it can't be seen in my posts on the matter but I've also favoured Hillary Clinton.

I wonder as to your age, mid-30's? I might be wrong but for some people, certainly for me, it's somewhat, not totally, tied into how great the mid-90's seemed to be, there seemed so much hope and optimism for the future, so much interest in the present, and it all went very bleak after 2000.

I'm not saying I feel bleak, I'm not saying it might not have been down to being energetic mid-20's in a time of seeming prosperity but I wonder if my thoughts are slightly biased by memory.

I also feel it's her shot, I feel it will be a long time before a woman gets close - though the same can be said for a black person, although he'd get 2012/16 to go for, even then, much could go wrong and this is simply his shot at the title - and I do feel a sense of empathy for her desire for this, to close off the Bush presidency, to...something.

It's been funny, the fact remains that what is simply is.

Which means exactly what I said. The voters feel differently.



Or on the flip side, I believe they didn't. I believe they made the correct choice.

I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune next February if there's a President McCain in the Oval Office.

Oh to HELL with you. You're the type of Obamaphile who is currently, gleefully driving moderate Democrats such as myself into the McCain camp. I think as a whole you've bought into something that isn't as substantial as it seems. We'll see come November. If Obama is defeated and McCain becomes President, you can expect me to come back and say, "I told you so."

...And YOU claim WE are being rude?

Very nice, I doubt it can't be seen in my posts on the matter but I've also favoured Hillary Clinton.

I wonder as to your age, mid-30's? I might be wrong but for some people, certainly for me, it's somewhat, not totally, tied into how great the mid-90's seemed to be, there seemed so much hope and optimism for the future, so much interest in the present, and it all went very bleak after 2000.

I'm not saying I feel bleak, I'm not saying it might not have been down to being energetic mid-20's in a time of seeming prosperity but I wonder if my thoughts are slightly biased by memory.

I also feel it's her shot, I feel it will be a long time before a woman gets close - though the same can be said for a black person, although he'd get 2012/16 to go for, even then, much could go wrong and this is simply his shot at the title - and I do feel a sense of empathy for her desire for this, to close off the Bush presidency, to...something.

It's been funny, the fact remains that what is simply is.

No, actually that's the ironic part. I'm in my late twenties, and college educated to-boot. I'm the demographic that ordinarily breaks heavily for Obama.

I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune next February if there's a President McCain in the Oval Office.

Considering he would, in this scenario, beat Hillary by MORE? Yes.

However, Obama will win.

Oh to HELL with you. You're the type of Obamaphile who is currently, gleefully driving moderate Democrats such as myself into the McCain camp. I think as a whole you've bought into something that isn't as substantial as it seems. We'll see come November. If Obama is defeated and McCain becomes President, you can expect me to come back and say, "I told you so."

You having your monthly bill or are you always this bitchy when you do not get your way or when facts contradict your statements?

No, actually that's the ironic part. I'm in my late twenties, and college educated to-boot. I'm the demographic that ordinarily breaks heavily for Obama.

Wow. Here I thought that a person who snaps at people that makes points wouldn't get into college that easily.

You having your monthly bill or are you always this bitchy when you do not get your way or when facts contradict your statements?

I think he just said he was a dude, and PMS jokes are kinda lame.

I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune next February if there's a President McCain in the Oval Office.

You mean Janurary.

And to be honest, I wouldn't care if McCain was President or not! If you bothered to read my posts thoroughly, you would have seen that I was a registered republican but switched so that I can vote for Barack Obama.

You mean Janurary.

And to be honest, I wouldn't care if McCain was President or not! If you bothered to read my posts thoroughly, you would have seen that I was a registered republican but switched so that I can vote for Barack Obama.

I, on the other hand, DO care. And Hillary would get a Republican in the White House. Obama won't.

No, actually that's the ironic part. I'm in my late twenties, and college educated to-boot. I'm the demographic that ordinarily breaks heavily for Obama.

Funny because if you were educated, you would be able to understand reason. I'm in my mid 20s and a college graduate myself. I guess I was able to digest reasoning.

You having your monthly bill or are you always this bitchy when you do not get your way or when facts contradict your statements?

The only "fact" is that you and Keikoku are acting like major league assholes, and that you refuse to say where you are getting these phantom "numbers" that support your claims. I'm bitchy because the whole lot of you on this forum happen to be smug and elitist. As I have said, I happen to have a (D) after my name too, but the way you have treated me since the day I came on I might as well have an (R). In fact, the McCain supporters have been -more- civil to me than the Obama supporters. That's kind of sad.

Funny because if you were educated, you would be able to understand reason. I'm in my mid 20s and a college graduate myself. I guess I was able to digest reasoning.

Unfortunately for you, stupidity is not a condition that can be cured in a university. Nor is boorishness.

Given the choice, and from a historical perspective, I would prefer that Hillary not be the first woman president, and not really because of her politics. Rather, I think it would be better for Feminism as a whole if the first woman president achieved the position based entirely on her own merits. If, in 8 years, Nancy Pelosi ran for president and took the job, I think she would take more of a step for women's recognition than Hillary ever could have.

Obama will be the first Black president, and will arrive there entirely of his own merits. He will stand as an inspiration for other people, of whatever race, that anyone who is competent enough can become President of the United States.

The first woman president should not gain her office because she has a famous husband.

I know I wrote a better post a while back, those who support Barack Obama should really take care - if they truly believe in a change for the better, they should still recognise that emotions are very wrapped up in elections, that many people do hold up the Clinton's as heroes, as good times, with fond memories.

They were divisive for sure, because the right truly did hate them, their happy-go-lucky, saxophone playing, West Wing style of presidency.

Good things happened, Northern Ireland was resolved, it was a time of peace though one could say it was exuberance from the Cold War ending, but, although prior to Bill Clinton, apartheid was over, people felt the world was getting better.

Emotions are tied up in the Clinton's, strong emotions and the danger is that jeering at those like Shal here will lead to a large swathe of people not voting, of handing the presidency to John McCain.

Sure a lot could be helped by ending this nomination process the right way, and the onus is on Hillary Clinton but there's a bigger issue at stake, another 4 years to be lost.

That would be a tragedy.

The only "fact" is that you and Keikoku are acting like major league assholes

Then, by all means! Report us! Now!

What the hell are you waiting for, REPORT US TO THE MODS! Do you have ANYTHING to back up that statement?

Edit: You know what? Don't worry! I'll report it myself.

The only "fact" is that you and Keikoku are acting like major league assholes, and that you refuse to say where you are getting these phantom "numbers" that support your claims.

Unlike you who haven't done so either. I'm still waiting on the michigan numbers. Oh and I haven't stated any such numbers.

I'm bitchy because the whole lot of you on this forum happen to be smug and elitist.

Sorry but I'm not an elitist. I just call it as I see it. BTW: did I mention I studied politics in College?

As I have said, I happen to have a (D) after my name too, but the way you have treated me since the day I came on I might as well have an (R). In fact, the McCain supporters have been -more- civil to me than the Obama supporters. That's kind of sad.

These kinds of attacks do nothing for me. Frankly, they are beneath my notice.

Unfortunately for you, stupidity is not a condition that can be cured in a university. Nor is boorishness.

WOW!!!

*holds up a mirror*

I know I wrote a better post a while back, those who support Barack Obama should really take care - if they truly believe in a change for the better, they should still recognise that emotions are very wrapped up in elections, that many people do hold up the Clinton's as heroes, as good times, with fond memories.

They were divisive for sure, because the right truly did hate them, their happy-go-lucky, saxophone playing, West Wing style of presidency.

Good things happened, Northern Ireland was resolved, it was a time of peace though one could say it was exuberance from the Cold War ending, but, although prior to Bill Clinton, apartheid was over, people felt the world was getting better.

Emotions are tied up in the Clinton's, strong emotions and the danger is that jeering at those like Shal here will lead to a large swathe of people not voting, of handing the presidency to John McCain.

Sure a lot could be helped by ending this nomination process the right way, and the onus is on Hillary Clinton but there's a bigger issue at stake, another 4 years to be lost.

That would be a tragedy.

I actually like the Clintons more BECAUSE the Right hates them. :p

I actually like the Clintons more BECAUSE the Right hates them. :p

That's great, but it WON'T GET HER ELECTED!

The fact that fewer people hate Obama, on the other hand, WILL.

I actually like the Clintons more BECAUSE the Right hates them. :p

Well, don't worry, you can console yourself with the fact that they're going to hate Barack Obama just as much.

In some senses, the point is that he might just be able to brush them off rather than get tied down in pointless fights such as the Starr Inquiry.

It may even be more fun to watch.

The important thing is that someone gets in.

In a way, I worry that John McCain doesn't make it a bitter fight, that a certain apathy sets in among the young votes that will be needed to ensure Barack Obama gets in because there'll sure be a lot of people voting against him.

If the argument is going to be who is the biggest poopie head perhaps interested parties could take it outside?

Unfortunately for you, stupidity is not a condition that can be cured in a university. Nor is boorishness.

Weren't you just complaining about how Obama supporters attack you? Have you noticed that your behavior has escalated since you entered the thread to the point where you (and, unfortunately, several other posters) are no, more than likely, violating the rules of the site?

I've not called you names or attacked you for supporting Hillary. You've regularly threatened me for disagreeing with a position you clearly take very personally. Frankly, given what I've seen of your history, and I checked, I find very little reason to believe this isn't just an empty threat. Cheer on McCain if your heart tells you to do so. But ask yourself why you'd do something as petty as relish a McCain win just because your pet candidate couldn't run a campaign.

If the argument is going to be who is the biggest poopie head perhaps interested parties could take it outside?

Actually, I already have. I lodged a complaint against both of them, and asked for a mod to remind them to play nice. As far as I am concerned, the conversation is therefore over.

Weren't you just complaining about how Obama supporters attack you? Have you noticed that your behavior has escalated since you entered the thread to the point where you (and, unfortunately, several other posters) are no, more than likely, violating the rules of the site?

I've not called you names or attacked you for supporting Hillary. You've regularly threatened me for disagreeing with a position you clearly take very personally. Frankly, given what I've seen of your history, and I checked, I find very little reason to believe this isn't just an empty threat. Cheer on McCain if your heart tells you to do so. But ask yourself why you'd do something as petty as relish a McCain win just because your pet candidate couldn't run a campaign.

:eek: Huh? I've never threatened you. I'm assuming you mean that I threatened to run out and vote against you. I don't believe I said I would do that, either. I've said that people LIKE me might be encouraged to do so, but I believe that I stated quite explicitly that I'll vote for Obama...I just won't be too enthusiastic about doing so.

:eek: Huh? I've never threatened you. I'm assuming you mean that I threatened to run out and vote against you. I don't believe I said I would do that, either. I've said that people LIKE me might be encouraged to do so, but I believe that I stated quite explicitly that I'll vote for Obama...I just won't be too enthusiastic about doing so.

You've stated that you would vote for McCain unless Billary explicitly support Barack Obama which we all know was going to happen anyway.

:eek: Huh? I've never threatened you.

You don't realize that saying you'll support McCain because your pet candidate lost is a threat. I realize that Obama supporters have said the same, but both threats are a bit silly at this point, no?

I'm assuming you mean that I threatened to run out and vote against you. I don't believe I said I would do that, either. I've said that people LIKE me might be encouraged to do so, but I believe that I stated quite explicitly that I'll vote for Obama...I just won't be too enthusiastic about doing so.

Actually, you've made it quite clear what you mean. Regardless, there is a lot of vitriol on both sides and don't you think it's a bit childish to call people assholes while complaining that "their side" is mistreating you? The fact is that someone has to be the bigger person in these situations. Are you dead set against that being you?

As far as your vote, you've several times jumped up and down about how you can't wait till McCain wins so you can feel like you were right. Frankly, I hope the best candidate wins. A candidate that treats EVERY state like it matters. EVERY single state.

You know what? This is not at all good for my blood pressure. I am not going to post in this thread again. In fact, I'm altogether leaving these discussions to others who have more tact than I. It's not worth the hassle.

Goodbye, folks.

You know what? This is not at all good for my blood pressure. I am not going to post in this thread again. In fact, I'm altogether leaving these discussions to others who have more tact than I. It's not worth the hassle.

Goodbye, folks.

*raises a glass in toast*

Hope to see you around again.

You know what? This is not at all good for my blood pressure. I am not going to post in this thread again. In fact, I'm altogether leaving these discussions to others who have more tact than I. It's not worth the hassle.

Goodbye, folks.

You know some people are being quite civil. You could take a breath, relax a bit, and perhaps focus on the points rather than the vitriol.

*raises a glass in toast*

Hope to see you around again.

You chose to become civil a little late. Frankly, considering your history, you might want to tread a bit further inside the line.

You just burned up the whole thread. This is why we can't have nice things.

You know some people are being quite civil. You could take a breath, relax a bit, and perhaps focus on the points rather than the vitriol.

I AM being civil.

And I WAS being more civil before HE snapped at ME with a "To hell with you".

You chose to become civil a little late. Frankly, considering your history, you might want to tread a bit further inside the line.

You just burned up the whole thread. This is why we can't have nice things.

This guy, for several times in this thread, was rude to other people all the while claiming that WE were being rude to HIM.

This guy, for several times in this thread, was rude to other people all the while claiming that WE were being rude to HIM.

Then report him and let it be. Some of us were having a conversation while you guys were flamebaiting him. Regardless, it's over now. Let's let it drop and let HR deal with it.

I AM being civil.

And I WAS being more civil before HE snapped at ME with a "To hell with you".

That makes 2 of us

Then report him and let it be. Some of us were having a conversation while you guys were flamebaiting him. Regardless, it's over now. Let's let it drop and let HR deal with it.

And how exactly was I flamebaiting him again? Care to explain as much?

Then report him and let it be. Some of us were having a conversation while you guys were flamebaiting him. Regardless, it's over now. Let's let it drop and let HR deal with it.

Actually...it was her doing most of the flaming. Some of us just got tired of it.

Actually...it was her doing most of the flaming. Some of us just got tired of it.

He sounded like the Christians pizza graphic in that animated gif.

*Chomp* "Help, I'm being oppressed!" *Chomp*

And how exactly was I flamebaiting him again? Care to explain as much?

I posted all of the relevant posts and HotRodia is reviewing the thread. It's really for him/her to handle, but we could have handled it ourselves much sooner. Instead we got three all-cap posts, two posts insulting the intelligence of various posters and an "asshole" in a pear tree.

Corny, HE said clearly HE was a HE before you suggested HE was pms'ing. You were corrected by CTOAN At this point, one wonders if you're not continuing to bait HIM.

in any case, can we get back to actual debate, like for instance the post I made at the end of the page before last? Usually I don't bring up ignored posts, but when they're buried by bickering about who was or wasn't an asshole, it gets annoying.

Given the choice, and from a historical perspective, I would prefer that Hillary not be the first woman president, and not really because of her politics. Rather, I think it would be better for Feminism as a whole if the first woman president achieved the position based entirely on her own merits. If, in 8 years, Nancy Pelosi ran for president and took the job, I think she would take more of a step for women's recognition than Hillary ever could have.

Obama will be the first Black president, and will arrive there entirely of his own merits. He will stand as an inspiration for other people, of whatever race, that anyone who is competent enough can become President of the United States.

The first woman president should not gain her office because she has a famous husband.

Agreed. Feel better? :p

Given the choice, and from a historical perspective, I would prefer that Hillary not be the first woman president, and not really because of her politics. Rather, I think it would be better for Feminism as a whole if the first woman president achieved the position based entirely on her own merits. If, in 8 years, Nancy Pelosi ran for president and took the job, I think she would take more of a step for women's recognition than Hillary ever could have.

Obama will be the first Black president, and will arrive there entirely of his own merits. He will stand as an inspiration for other people, of whatever race, that anyone who is competent enough can become President of the United States.

The first woman president should not gain her office because she has a famous husband.

Nice argument there buddy :)

I know I wrote a better post a while back, those who support Barack Obama should really take care - if they truly believe in a change for the better, they should still recognise that emotions are very wrapped up in elections, that many people do hold up the Clinton's as heroes, as good times, with fond memories.

They were divisive for sure, because the right truly did hate them, their happy-go-lucky, saxophone playing, West Wing style of presidency.

Good things happened, Northern Ireland was resolved, it was a time of peace though one could say it was exuberance from the Cold War ending, but, although prior to Bill Clinton, apartheid was over, people felt the world was getting better.

Emotions are tied up in the Clinton's, strong emotions and the danger is that jeering at those like Shal here will lead to a large swathe of people not voting, of handing the presidency to John McCain.

Sure a lot could be helped by ending this nomination process the right way, and the onus is on Hillary Clinton but there's a bigger issue at stake, another 4 years to be lost.

That would be a tragedy.

Agreed. I still feel very strongly that the very thing that Obama did to make me willing to vote Democrat is why I don't support Hillary. However, I'll admit I was a bit cowed on that position by TCT and rightly so. We do need to take care about how much vitriol we allow into a process where we're really arguing about a difference of approach.

Given the choice, and from a historical perspective, I would prefer that Hillary not be the first woman president, and not really because of her politics. Rather, I think it would be better for Feminism as a whole if the first woman president achieved the position based entirely on her own merits. If, in 8 years, Nancy Pelosi ran for president and took the job, I think she would take more of a step for women's recognition than Hillary ever could have.

Obama will be the first Black president, and will arrive there entirely of his own merits. He will stand as an inspiration for other people, of whatever race, that anyone who is competent enough can become President of the United States.

The first woman president should not gain her office because she has a famous husband.

Good point.

(There, there. I know how you feel.) ;)

Agreed. I still feel very strongly that the very thing that Obama did to make me willing to vote Democrat is why I don't support Hillary. However, I'll admit I was a bit cowed on that position by TCT and rightly so. We do need to take care about how much vitriol we allow into a process where we're really arguing about a difference of approach.

Sure - however, if I can whine about posts I, and I mean Me, Myself and I, think are worth talking about, I thought my post here is a better point of discussion - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13678004&postcount=338

What do people think the key turning points were?

*snicker* Pot, this is kettle.

Fair enough, but missing an "er" is an error related to word usage. Shit, I had to say something in my defense :cool:

Sure - however, if I can whine about posts I, and I mean Me, Myself and I, think are worth talking about, I thought my post here is a better point of discussion - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13678004&postcount=338

What do people think the key turning points were?

I think it's pretty obvious frankly. I think people like myself have always hated bitter politics, fear politics. Honestly, when this started I kind of like McCain. I really liked him in 2000 and I wish he'd have beat Bush in the primaries. I support Obama because finally you see someone who is trying to do it a little better, someone who hasn't given it all up to "just politics". In fact, when I started this was part of why I preferred McCain to Clinton. McCain tries to rise above it as well, and it would be nice if voters could run to a candidate instead of from them.

Fair enough, but missing an "er" is an error related to word usage. Shit, I had to say something in my defense :cool:

At least he didn't say "Pott, thees is ketle."

Her argument that she's more electable has all but gone down the drain.
That may be your take on it, but as long as these reports keep popping up, perhaps you should get down from that high horse:

Electoral Votes: Obama 264 McCain 263 Ties 11 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May06.html)

Electoral Votes: Clinton 291 McCain 236 Ties 11 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May06.html)

I truly believe that Obama cannot possibly win the general election.

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win – blue-collar, working class people," Limbaugh also said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

Rarely do I agree with Limbaugh, but on this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) I do agree.

This just ain't "What if", buddy. Although I will be the first to admit that polls are not everything, there's a definite trend here. The board on 270 To Win shows that Clinton has somewhat fewer "Strong Democrat" states than Obama, but that Clinton has a LOT more "Swing Democrat" states than Obama. Similarly, The Votemaster's page has consistently shown her winning in big swing states that Obama loses. The math is somewhat frightening.

And I DID vote for the best person for the job. I voted for Clinton. We don't need more inexperience in the White House...and she would have brought Bill's ideas and expertise back with her. In the rush for "change", the Obamacrats have thrown out a very formidable woman.

So you are saying we should have let her win because she's the best chance for a woman candidate, more so than we will have in some time. Your other argument was that it was "her turn" because Obama is young enough to run in 8 years. She may be the best woman candidate, but I don't base my decisions on gender. And gender/race/whatever is never a plus or minus for how I rate my calender. We are either putting up a woman or a black man. Either way it's progress for America.

I think it's pretty obvious frankly. I think people like myself have always hated bitter politics, fear politics. Honestly, when this started I kind of like McCain. I really liked him in 2000 and I wish he'd have beat Bush in the primaries. I support Obama because finally you see someone who is trying to do it a little better, someone who hasn't given it all up to "just politics". In fact, when I started this was part of why I preferred McCain to Clinton. McCain tries to rise above it as well, and it would be nice if voters could run to a candidate instead of from them.

The fact remains though that politics simply is that way, it's all fine to say that we should change, whether that change can be enacted, whether he has the political nous to drive through legislation that matters or whether he's either naive to believe he can or fooling the public into believing he can is a legitimate question.

It's why I bring the Internet into my post, I wonder if politician's will no longer be able to get away with sneaky politics, whether they'll be punished at the ballot if they're seen to be dishonest, whether we can sustain this enormous interest shown in the nomination...

...because that's the other point, divisive politics encourages debate, it keeps us alert and it drives things forward.

I retain certain doubts despite his obvious intelligence, his seeming integrity but it's not something we haven't heard before.

Rarely do I agree with Limbaugh, but on this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) I do agree.

If you rarely agree with him except on this, then why bring him up? You don't even recognize his authority, why would we give him any credence? Just because you found someone who agreed with you on one point and none else doesn't actually buttress your argument. You've never quite gotten the hang of this sourcing thing...

That may be your take on it, but as long as these reports keep popping up, perhaps you should get down from that high horse:

Electoral Votes: Obama 264 McCain 263 Ties 11 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May06.html)

Electoral Votes: Clinton 291 McCain 236 Ties 11 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May06.html)

I truly believe that Obama cannot possibly win the general election.

Golly, she had a surge of momentum and suddenly she did very well in polls. Shocker. One wonders what will happen now that Obama is surging. Heh. No need to wonder, I know you know.

Meanwhile, Obama had the worst two weeks of his political career and smoked Hillary, ending her bid, while still faring quite well against a candidate no one is running against yet.

Rarely do I agree with Limbaugh, but on this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) I do agree.
Uh-huh. I know Rush has very little faith in your candidate, but do you? She has more appeal than Obama with the white working class. Are you claiming that McCain has so much more than her that he will attract white working class democrats from the other party, something she doesn't actually do very strongly.

Rush in the same breath credited himself with the only reason Clinton was ever in the race. Clearly, when he doesn't like a candidate, he's completely honest and usually correct, no?

That may be your take on it, but as long as these reports keep popping up, perhaps you should get down from that high horse:

Electoral Votes: Obama 264 McCain 263 Ties 11 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May06.html)

Electoral Votes: Clinton 291 McCain 236 Ties 11 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May06.html)

I truly believe that Obama cannot possibly win the general election.



Rarely do I agree with Limbaugh, but on this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) I do agree.

I've stated it before and I"ll state it again! There are two candidates still vying for the democratic nomination. When there is one, the numbers will change.

The fact remains though that politics simply is that way, it's all fine to say that we should change, whether that change can be enacted, whether he has the political nous to drive through legislation that matters or whether he's either naive to believe he can or fooling the public into believing he can is a legitimate question.

It's why I bring the Internet into my post, I wonder if politician's will no longer be able to get away with sneaky politics, whether they'll be punished at the ballot if they're seen to be dishonest, whether we can sustain this enormous interest shown in the nomination...

...because that's the other point, divisive politics encourages debate, it keeps us alert and it drives things forward.

I retain certain doubts despite his obvious intelligence, his seeming integrity but it's not something we haven't heard before.

Actually the initial surges in turnout happened when the campaign wasn't particularly divisive. That divisive spawned it isn't supported by facts.

As far as it just being the way, I'm sorry, but I've not given up on politics nor the American people. We've not been inspired in a while, for sure, but we long to be inspired. Frankly, the reason the last several elections have been so low-brow is because neither party has put up a candidate that was even close to inspirational, unless you count inspiring people to show up just to vote against. One could argue there was a moment when that was happening again.

I've stated it before and I"ll state it again! There are two candidates still vying for the democratic nomination. When there is one, the numbers will change.

Like some others we've seen, CH has the "I can't wait till McCain wins so you damned Obama supporters will learn who your betters are" just dripping from his "I can't wait to tell you so" posts.

The fact is that if Obama loses it will be bad for the nation and those that just can't wait for that to happen, looking forward to it, should really check their motivations. Hillary had her chance. She squandered it. IF she was the better candidate, then there is no one to blame for her loss of the Presidency but her.

By the way, anyone notice that first he didn't win the right kind of states. Then it was he didn't win the right kind of elections. Then it was he didn't win them in the right way. Now it's that he doesn't attract the right kind of voter.

One wonders which group is elitest while they're calling educated people "eggheads" and the various other dismissive terms for Obama voters. It's kind of sad that this is what's it come to.

By the way, anyone notice that first he didn't win the right kind of states. Then it was he didn't win the right kind of elections. Then it was he didn't win them in the right way. Now it's that he doesn't attract the right kind of voter.

One wonders which group is elitest while they're calling educated people "eggheads" and the various other dismissive terms for Obama voters. It's kind of sad that this is what's it come to.

It all boils down to "He doesn't have the right last name".

Actually the initial surges in turnout happened when the campaign wasn't particularly divisive. That divisive spawned it isn't supported by facts.

No, but one could argue there was a novelty factor, an inspiring figure that caused a surge that made this nomination so very interesting.

As far as it just being the way, I'm sorry, but I've not given up on politics nor the American people. We've not been inspired in a while, for sure, but we long to be inspired. Frankly, the reason the last several elections have been so low-brow is because neither party has put up a candidate that was even close to inspirational, unless you count inspiring people to show up just to vote against. One could argue there was a moment when that was happening again.

Indeed, the question is whether that inspiration can be fulfilled, because there's no harder crash than hope crushed.

In terms of change, I'm sure many thought Jimmy Carter would be a different kind of politician after the Nixon years, but he was ineffective because he was inexperienced.

Will that be Barack Obama, can he push through legislation or will he be mired in the tactics of the right?

At the moment he's having to win a public popularity contest, one where the actual issues have been mostly ignored over personality but that doesn't necessarily translate into an ability to work the political process.

No, but one could argue there was a novelty factor, an inspiring figure that caused a surge that made this nomination so very interesting.



Indeed, the question is whether that inspiration can be fulfilled, because there's no harder crash than hope crushed.

In terms of change, I'm sure many thought Jimmy Carter would be a different kind of politician after the Nixon years, but he was ineffective because he was inexperienced.

Will that be Barack Obama, can he push through legislation or will he be mired in the tactics of the right?

At the moment he's having to win a public popularity contest, one where the actual issues have been mostly ignored over personality but that doesn't necessarily translate into an ability to work the political process.

If he has that down ballot boost, he'll have a pretty good coalition to work with in the senate.

His campaign can be an indicator of his ability, if imperfect. From how he has raised his money, to how he read the election situation and managed an underdog victory against a very establishment candidate. The ability to convince, sway, inspire, and read the situation correctly, from Iraq to the primaries. This is not to paint him as infallible or imply he has made no mistakes, and certainly he'll make more. But I think we can see some of that post election political ability in how he runs his election.

Will that be Barack Obama, can he push through legislation or will he be mired in the tactics of the right?

At the moment he's having to win a public popularity contest, one where the actual issues have been mostly ignored over personality but that doesn't necessarily translate into an ability to work the political process.

he actually has a fairly impressive history of getting shit done. particularly back here in chicago and lesser illinois, where he managed to get everybody on board with video taping police interrogations to prevent police brutality and coerced confessions, despite initial opposition from the forces of 'law and order' and even governor blago. this is particularly impressive since it is absolutely the right move but not something you can really use for showing off as a political triumph due to said reflexive deference to 'law and order' nutjobs on the part of the public, and it required some amazing political abilities and stark determination to pull off.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012841.php

Folks, what some of you are displaying -- the disappointment on one side and the rejoicing on the other -- is what the Democrats will have to deal with as a party.

If you want them to do so with generosity of spirit, recognising that both candidates' supporters are trying to do the best for their party's common aim, here would be a good place to start practising.

What you say here, you can be called on, by supporters and opponents.

More importantly, there are people behind the posts, every bit as intelligent, well-meaning and thoughtful as you are. So cut out the little jabs.

(The big ones, Hotrodia's dealt with (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13678542&postcount=3).)

Well, just to send the debate in a SLIGHTLY more different direction, I'd like to paraphrase an article I read in the paper a little while back, I feel it sums up my feelings nicely.

The three main candidates to emerge out of the primary process were all, from an Australian's point of view, high quality candidates, each of which represented a different facet of USA.

We have McCain, who represents (well, he did until he had to start pandering to the neo-cons) the United States' glorious past. The one who stands up for truth and justice and right for everyone, who has experienced horrors and therefore would do everything to prevent said horrors from occurring again, to anyone. The strong, wilful, upstanding gentlemen of America's golden days. This image has been tarnished a bit recently, but underneath, I generally believe he is still that same man.

Then we have Clinton, who is the physical embodiment of everything we like about current or recent USA. Admittedly it isn't much in the last year or two, but she is still the personification of a modern, strong willed, intelligent, nd highly capable person. The fact that she achieved so much despite her gender is indicative of another thing we like about modern USA- anyone can achieve anything, based on merit alone. There's no denying she would have made a fabulous president, one who could turn the tide of the last few years, and put that country back on track. In any other presidential campaign, I would have been salivating at the thought of the first woman president.

But then there is Obama. He seems, to an outsider, to be EXACTLY what the country needs. He is everything we want America to be in the future. He offers a new golden era -for those Australians out there, the "light on the hill" is an appropriate comparison- he offers what we look at America and see desperately needed: Change. The fact that he is so inspiring, so uplifting, and even after a hellish number of weeks has stuck to his guns on the need for a new direction. He offers to the rest of the world something which the US has been severely lacking in the last few years: integrity. Even when he failed to denounce his Pastor, I saw that as a true embodiment of what he is. He is a man to whom his own personal integrity is sacrosanct, and who will not compromise on who and what he is just to achieve a political end. He offers the hope of being the greatest US president in a very, very, very long time.

So I for one am truly optimistic about the future. I would have been optimistic had Hillary won. As it is, with a somewhat inevitable Obama in the White House, the world may finally start to get its shit together. Or at least back on the right track.

I have to say, I do feel truly sorry for Hillary. This was her best chance. It was just also when the country needed change the most, after 8 years of dreadful Bushism, and Obama is the perfect ambassador for change.

Just my two cents. And really, I only paraphrased the article in the whole past-present-future thing. The rest was mine ;)

Folks, what some of you are displaying -- the disappointment on one side and the rejoicing on the other -- is what the Democrats will have to deal with as a party.

If you want them to do so with generosity of spirit, recognising that both candidates' supporters are trying to do the best for their party's common aim, here would be a good place to start practising.

What you say here, you can be called on, by supporters and opponents.

More importantly, there are people behind the posts, every bit as intelligent, well-meaning and thoughtful as you are. So cut out the little jabs.

(The big ones, Hotrodia's dealt with (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13678542&postcount=3).)

But I like jabs. Who wants to debate when you can just talk about whether or not you should have been allowed in college? And since you're asking, did they allow you into college with that hat?

But I like jabs. Who wants to debate when you can just talk about whether or not you should have been allowed in college? And since you're asking, did they allow you into college with that hat?

That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from "I am America (and so can you.)" "I can't count the number of times I've heard the phrase, "You went to Dartmouth? I find that hard to believe."

That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from "I am America (and so can you.)" "I can't count the number of times I've heard the phrase, "You went to Dartmouth? I find that hard to believe."

I just looked that up. Looks funny. Worth a read?

Well, first off I have to say that with Clinton sure you do get experiance...but hey you've seen where experiance lands us, most of this Bush Administration was apart of the first Bush administration, *Thank you BA for circle jerking on our nation*, so choosing her for that is just a bad ploy. Second, Clinton already had the chance at doing some good and she failed...miserable. I for one prefer the inexperianced Obama, either that or im going to vote McCain, at least with him i'll be entertained while watching him slowly turn senial ^.^

I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune next February if there's a President McCain in the Oval Office.

I think I'll sing zippity do da if McCain or Obama win.

No, actually that's the ironic part. I'm in my late twenties, and college educated to-boot. I'm the demographic that ordinarily breaks heavily for Obama.

Late 20's seems like it would still be perfect for a rosey view of the 1990's. Let's say you were born in 1980...This makes you 12 when Bill took office and 20 when he finally left. Plenty of time for nostalgia...

Actually, I already have. I lodged a complaint against both of them, and asked for a mod to remind them to play nice. As far as I am concerned, the conversation is therefore over.

Play nice? Take your own advice. Joc, CNTOAN,and I have not flamed you, but you have done it to us.

You know some people are being quite civil. You could take a breath, relax a bit, and perhaps focus on the points rather than the vitriol.

No, it's easier to paint us all with the same broad brush. This way he can feel justified in leaving and keep his pride intact. Isn't psychology fun?

That may be your take on it, but as long as these reports keep popping up, perhaps you should get down from that high horse:

Electoral Votes: Obama 264 McCain 263 Ties 11 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May06.html)

Electoral Votes: Clinton 291 McCain 236 Ties 11 (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May06.html)

I truly believe that Obama cannot possibly win the general election.



Rarely do I agree with Limbaugh, but on this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) I do agree.

1. primary wins do not equal general wins

2. looking at an electoral vote map right now before a dem is even selected is silly.

3. Presuming that the election is going to break out just like 2000 and 2004 is just silly

4. With negative ratings as high as Hillary's she'll never win this many states just because she won them in the primary

5. Assuming Obama will not win solidly democratic states is silly

6. Obama has put some red states in play because he has gone with a 50 state strategy. When you look at how close some of the states were in recent elections with a horrible candidate like Kerry, Obama will do much better.

7. Obama has the ability to take some pretty bad press and keep moving forward. Hillary has been hitting him with the same talking points the Republicans will be.

8. Obama has energized a voting population untapped before.

9. Obama will have a better down ballot effect than Hillary would. The Democrats should pick up seats in both the house and the senate.

10. Comparing polling data in May will not be relevant in October.

11. The Republicans may hit Obama hard, but not as hard as Hillary. For all the "standing up to" the "vast right wing conspiracy" still got her husband impeached (I didn't agree with this). So clearly the Republican tactics work just fine on Clintons.

12. His ground game and ability to raise money are far better than hers.

13. She does not have the ability to turn as many states as he can. There are many conservatives (regardless of how much he panders to them) who do not like McCain. This is an opening for Obama. Conversely, people will pick him as the lesser of two evils over Hillary.

14. His intelligence, demeanor, and drive make him more likable than her or McCain. When it comes right down to it there is a popularity contest to this election. It's just the way people are and they do not like her.

*eats popcorn as NSG liberals and Democrats beat each other over the head*
*makes hotel reservations for top level floor of hotel in Denver for the Convention so he can get the best view of the riots*

But I like jabs. Who wants to debate when you can just talk about whether or not you should have been allowed in college? And since you're asking, did they allow you into college with that hat?

I think it's rather insulting to suggest that other posters are every bit as intelligent as me. Insulting to them........:p

K, that's my token spam in this thread. I'll be off

believe what? that a serious and credible female contender now makes it easier for a woman to take the top spot later? that's the way it always works for these sorts of things.

i just came across a neat display of this sort of dam breaking, in terms of female governors in usia. from the wonderful world of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_state_governors_in_the_United_States), a timeline of female governors.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2475550529_c0e3f28e22_o.png

clearly we aren't all the way to approximate equality in this measure yet, but equally clearly we are accelerating towards it.

according to zogby, writing for the beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7387919.stm),

"My understanding is that probably today, but certainly within 48 hours, about 30 super-delegates will endorse Mr Obama."

of course, zogby has been all over the place this season, so take that as you will.

15% of the people who voted for Clinton in IN said they will not vote for her in the general. This compares to just 7% for Obama.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1738215,00.html

ok, so you know how we have been saying that it looked like team clinton just didn't understand the rules of the game? hilarious confirmation (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html):

Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates.

mark penn. political strategist. monumental idiot.

ok, so you know how we have been saying that it looked like team clinton just didn't understand the rules of the game? hilarious confirmation (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html):



mark penn. political strategist. monumental idiot.

Yeah, Mark Penn kind of sucks. By "kind of" I actually mean totally.

Yeah, Mark Penn kind of sucks. By "kind of" I actually mean totally.

except he manages to get paid bajillions of dollars for his utter ineptness. its a fucking travesty.

except he manages to get paid bajillions of dollars for his utter ineptness. its a fucking travesty.

See? Obviously you're not stupid enough to make the big bucks...

ok, so you know how we have been saying that it looked like team clinton just didn't understand the rules of the game? hilarious confirmation (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html):



mark penn. political strategist. monumental idiot.

What makes that worse is that strategist Harold Ickes is the one who pushed through the proportional system in order to give underdog candidates a chance to upset establishment ones...

What makes that worse is that strategist Harold Ickes is the one who pushed through the proportional system in order to give underdog candidates a chance to upset establishment ones...

Looks like an idiocy pandemic to me...

except he manages to get paid bajillions of dollars for his utter ineptness. its a fucking travesty.

Along my road in life so far I have come across a great deal of people who make a lot of money, and I thought many of them were straight up fools. Coming from a place where a military family doesn't make much, I saw what it was like to struggle mightily. Now that my father has retired he makes a hefty chunk of $. My wife and I started off middle class and we've now worked our way up to what can be considered upper middle class. We are in the top %5 of wage earners in America. We have earned our way there at a relatively young age (without giving it away, neither of us have gone above a 0 birthday since we were 20. We work 60+ hours every week. We both have Master's degrees and double majored in undergrad. My wife came from a family that is in the top 1% and I did not. Together we have worked hard to get here. No one handed us a trust fund. No one gave us a job because of our name. But we sure as shit don't make as much money as that tool, or other people whose brains don't match their money. In short, F Mark Penn.

Like I said, you can't prove all those Republicans were only voting to screw Obama.

And I agreed. It is interesting, however, that 15% of the people who voted for her in Indiana said they will not support her in November.

Otherwise, it's like you're saying Republicans have no right to vote in an open primary.

Of course they do. If you had to be a registered party member to vote in any primary, I'd be locked out of them completely.

In truth, I think the very idea of taxpayer-funded closed primaries is utterly ridiculous.

1. primary wins do not equal general winsYeah, CH's post had nothing to do with the primaries. Besides that, "He won't be nearly as terrible in the general election" is a pretty sucky argument for electability.

5. Assuming Obama will not win solidly democratic states is sillySo it's equally silly to assume Obama will win solidly Republican states, right?

Oh, wait...

6. Obama has put some red states in play because he has gone with a 50 state strategy.A 50-state strategy for the primaries. Weren't you just saying that primary wins don't equal general election wins?? Or do you honestly think Obama's going to be gunning for votes in Alaska and Wyoming come the fall?

8. Obama has energized a voting population untapped before. Idiotic argument. An energized primary electorate does not equal an energized general electorate. If we want to be consistent with "primary wins do not equal general election wins," that is.

9. Obama will have a better down ballot effect than Hillary would. The Democrats should pick up seats in both the house and the senate. How did you arrive at this "statistic"? Your Magic-8 Ball?

10. Comparing polling data in May will not be relevant in October.Then why are you already predicting such wild success for Obama based on May polling numbers?

13. She does not have the ability to turn as many states as he can. There are many conservatives (regardless of how much he panders to them) who do not like McCain. This is an opening for Obama. Conversely, people will pick him as the lesser of two evils over Hillary.Doesn't really square with the argument that conservatives are voting with Hillary to screw Obama in the primaries. If these disaffected conservatives want to vote Democratic, why are they supposedly trying to hurt the party's chances in the fall?

14. His intelligence, demeanor, and drive make him more likable than her or McCain. When it comes right down to it there is a popularity contest to this election. It's just the way people are and they do not like her.OK, these are the lyrics from Obama Girl's latest video, right?

A 50-state strategy for the primaries.

no, he's fully adopted the general 50 state strategy. he already announced that he was running some massive voter registration drive in every state and training up a cadre of new organizers and funding the state parties, etc. what seems like months ago. he's currently out-organized most of the traditional dem apparatus all over the place, and is now working on consolidating the whole thing under his new organization.

no, he's fully adopted the general 50 state strategy. he already announced that he was running some massive voter registration drive in every state and training up a cadre of new organizers and funding the state parties, etc. what seems like months ago. he's currently out-organized most of the traditional dem apparatus all over the place, and is now working on consolidating the whole thing under his new organization.

how did he get so smart at running a national campaign?

I got a crush on the Obama girl.

Yeah, CH's post had nothing to do with the primaries. Besides that, "He won't be nearly as terrible in the general election" is a pretty sucky argument for electability.

That you begin your post with a strawman is very telling. Nothing better than making sure people can tell you're not actually debating in the first sentence. No one said "he won't be nearly as terrible...". In fact, given he's actually gotten nearly as high of a percentage of votes from his party in contested states as John McCain gets uncontested, it seems like John McCain who is hoping to not be "nearly as terrible."

He can only get three quarters of the vote from his own party with no opponents. That's pretty sad.

As far as your silly "an energized primary electorate" argument, can you tell me how many times in history more people voted in a primary than in the general? An energized primary electorate pretty much means a MORE energized general electorate. That's actually one of the reasons primaries aren't the same as the general in terms of demographics.

super update - demconwatch has clinton's lead in them as of yesterday down to 11.5, with obama having gained 10 since sunday.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_qJGvnOCBQcA/SCJfLFXslHI/AAAAAAAAARk/ZoZJdQaFFn8/s400/image001.gif (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/superdelegate-history-tracker.html)

I had said something in the polls thread, I believe, about this being the pin pull moment, that if Clinton wins Indiana and loses North Carolina she'd be more or less done but there would be nothing in her narrative that allowed her to quit, which means that then there is no graceful way out for her.

Looks like that's pretty much the case, as there is more on the the new goalposts (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10184.html)-
It’s a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race.

The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates—a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination—a tally that includes Florida and Michigan.

“We don’t accept 2,025. It is not the real number because that does not include Florida and Michigan,” said Howard Wolfson, one of Clinton’s two chief strategists. “It’s a phony number.”

Wolfson said they intend to contest the DNC’s 2,025 number “every day,” as well as any declaration of victory made by Obama based upon that number, because it does not include Florida and Michigan.
I had always thought that the 2025 number was a pledged delegate threshold, but apparently it's not.
Obama will not reach the 2,025 magic number on May 20. Rather, on that date he is all but certain to hit a different threshold—1,627 pledged delegates, which would constitute a winning majority among the 3,253 total pledged delegates if Florida and Michigan are not included.

Huh. So this is the pin pull, we're going to reach a time when we have one candidate calling himself winner and another in denial...

Already, the two campaigns are gearing up for the battle.

“With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days,” wrote Plouffe in his memo. “While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.”

“You can declare mission accomplished but that doesn’t mean that the mission has actually been accomplished,” Wolfson said.

I had said something in the polls thread, I believe, about this being the pin pull moment, that if Clinton wins Indiana and loses North Carolina she'd be more or less done but there would be nothing in her narrative that allowed her to quit, which means that then there is no graceful way out for her.

Looks like that's pretty much the case, as there is more on the the new goalposts (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10184.html)-

I had always thought that the 2025 number was a pledged delegate threshold, but apparently it's not.


Huh. So this is the pin pull, we're going to reach a time when we have one candidate calling himself winner and another in denial...

Well, she's right in it, really. Because she has a majority in both those states, and we all know, that dem contests are winner take all. Right, Howard?

this is getting sad :(

this is getting sad :(

Like I've said in the past, she could have gone about this in a way that would have primed her for President in a later election, but instead she's choosing to make it virtually impossible to find the remotest amount of integrity in her bid for this nomination.

Like I've said in the past, she could have gone about this in a way that would have primed her for President in a later election, but instead she's choosing to make it virtually impossible to find the remotest amount of integrity in her bid for this nomination.

she is 60. this is her last chance unless obama doesnt win.

*eats popcorn as NSG liberals and Democrats beat each other over the head*
*makes hotel reservations for top level floor of hotel in Denver for the Convention so he can get the best view of the riots*

Wow, I didn't know Rush Limbaugh posted here. :rolleyes:

she is 60. this is her last chance unless obama doesnt win.

Why? McCain is 71.

At this point if Hillary takes the nomination, I will not be able to vote for her in good conscience in the general. She cannot legitimately win the nomination at this point, and if she is the nominee, I will not be willing to legitimize her nomination with my vote. I will vote for Barack obama in the general election even if I have to write his name on the ballot.

Why? McCain is 70.

mccain is too old.

thats a very big reason why he wont win.

but hillary would be most likely 72....

obama wins '08, he runs in '12, if he wins '12, his VP has the nomination if (s)he wants it. hillary is far past her "sell by" date by then.

I'd like to see Kathleen Sebelius be Obamas VP

she is 60. this is her last chance unless obama doesnt win.

If Obama wins two terms it would make her 68, which is about what John McCain is, and women live longer than men on average, so, you know, tanned rested and ready...

If Obama wins two terms it would make her 68, which is about what John McCain is, and women live longer than men on average, so, you know, tanned rested and ready...

she wont get the nomination unless she is his VP or the VP doesnt want it.

she MIGHT be able to swing one more run in '12 if obama loses. longer than that and she is too much of a loser.

she wont get the nomination unless she is his VP or the VP doesnt want it.

she MIGHT be able to swing one more run in '12 if obama loses. longer than that and she is too much of a loser.

There's no way she'll be his VP after working this hard to tear him down.

I am honestly disgusted that she would even consider accepting votes from Michigan.

For those who don't MI proposed a compromise 69-59 seating in Hillary's favor. Clinton rejected that today.

She wrote a letter to Obama -

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/clinton_sends_letter_to_obama.html

In other words, the Clinton camp will not settle for a compromise. They wish to see the seating represent the outcome of a completely illegal election process, one that disenfranchised all the voters that believed the DNC when they made the rules.

Seriously, this really has gotten sad. It's a solution. She can take. Obama SHOULD take it.

There's no way she'll be his VP after working this hard to tear him down.

I am honestly disgusted that she would even consider accepting votes from Michigan.

i dont think they would work well together after fighting so hard. its not out of the question but there would have to be some excellent new reason for him to offer and for her to accept.

Also since Tuesday Obama has picked up 6 supers to Clinton's net of 0. My prediction was 10-0 in the week after the primary. Four more for Obama (of which 2 have to be Clinton's in order for me to be right), and Hillary has to pick up 2, in order to offset the two more defections I'm predicting.

Am I right? Well, I'm white and male and that has to count for something.

are people still giving clinton money?

i dont know where to look.

are people still giving clinton money?

i dont know where to look.

Yes, and some like Harvey Weinstein are threatening to withhold money from the overall Democratic Party if Hillary isn't given the nod.

That you begin your post with a strawman is very telling. Nothing better than making sure people can tell you're not actually debating in the first sentence.Of course not. If anyone actually behaved logically on NSG, the forums would explode. :p

I got a crush on the Obama girl.Heh. I'm thinking I'll run for president next time 'round, just so she'll make me a video.

mccain is too old.

thats a very big reason why he wont win.<_< ...wasn't Reagan 73 when he won re-elec... aww, nevermind.

For those who don't MI proposed a compromise 69-59 seating in Hillary's favor. Clinton rejected that today.

She wrote a letter to Obama -

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/clinton_sends_letter_to_obama.html

In other words, the Clinton camp will not settle for a compromise. They wish to see the seating represent the outcome of a completely illegal election process, one that disenfranchised all the voters that believed the DNC when they made the rules.

Seriously, this really has gotten sad. It's a solution. She can take. Obama SHOULD take it.
I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted.
"Well, consistently since I lost South Carolina and suddenly needed those votes, back in September when this decision was made I was all for it..."

Also since Tuesday Obama has picked up 6 supers to Clinton's net of 0. My prediction was 10-0 in the week after the primary. Four more for Obama (of which 2 have to be Clinton's in order for me to be right), and Hillary has to pick up 2, in order to offset the two more defections I'm predicting.

Am I right? Well, I'm white and male and that has to count for something.
Clinton picked up one or two in North Carolina who said they'd go with whoever won their district. Not ringing endorsements, but endorsements...
Yes, and some like Harvey Weinstein are threatening to withhold money from the overall Democratic Party if Hillary isn't given the nod.
With the grass roots fund raising that Obama has used to out raise Clinton, he might be able to keep it.

Yes, and some like Harvey Weinstein are threatening to withhold money from the overall Democratic Party if Hillary isn't given the nod.

well i guess the dems are going to have to do without mr weinsteins money. that ship has left the dock.

Of course not. If anyone actually behaved logically on NSG, the forums would explode. :p

Well, it's good to admit where you're coming from. I accept that you shouldn't be expected to adhere to logic. Keep throwing up strawmen.

This was my prediction from February, 2007 - for those who say Barack Obama was an unknown before the primaries, I'd say it's just not true among those with the slightest interest in politics:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Turnips
Seeing has Bush has incenerated any chances of a Republican victory, and there is this odd thing in the American Public about never voting for third parties, I'd say the Democrats are in the door this time 2009.

Quote:
Originally posted by Barringtonia
Not being American I can't vote however:

I wouldn't say the Republican victory has been incinerated. If their current strategy is to escalate Iran then a: Iran backs down and the R's say their strategy in Iraq has worked as nations are beginning to comply or b: Iran doesn't back down and the R's say 'see, we're in real danger'

Meanwhile, the D's tear themselves apart over voting for a female or a black president.

Then comes the curveball, China wipes the floor in terms of gold medals in the Olympics, held just 2 months before the US elections.

America goes paranoid and turns back to the R's.

I'd say it was lining up nicely.

If I could reasonably predict this back in February last year, it's hard to say he was unknown.

Original Post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12374480&postcount=13)

This was my prediction from February, 2007 - for those who say Barack Obama was an unknown before the primaries, I'd say it's just not true among those with the slightest interest in politics:

Nonsense. It's not true among those who have a MAJOR interest in politics. The majority of Americans only pay attention during Presidential elections and the occasional major event. To say he wasn't an unknown, especially in comparison to the former First Lady, really calls into question your status as credible on this subject.

Exactly how did people get to know Senator Obama?

If I could reasonably predict this back in February last year, it's hard to say he was unknown.

Original Post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12374480&postcount=13)

Yes, because one person said this, that's evidence, right? I mean, it's not like "unknown" applies to more than you. For example, I could predict it because I know how compelling he is, but that has NOTHING to do with whether or not he was unknown. All the polling from the early bits of this election show he was certainly unknown among many who were polled.

Well, it's good to admit where you're coming from. I accept that you shouldn't be expected to adhere to logic. Keep throwing up strawmen.Given I was only parodying other posters' arguments, perhaps you could lighten up a bit? Hmm?

Given I was only parodying other posters' arguments, perhaps you could lighten up a bit? Hmm?

Only you weren't. If you were, it wouldn't be a strawman. Your comments presumed a lot of things that cannot be found in the original post.

Obama won. Most don't count winning as terrible, but even if one did, he needn't be less terrible. Winning is enough. The original post said primaries and the general were different, it never said anything about anyone being less terrible. The fact is that the campaign and the voters behave differently. For one thing, there are ALWAYS more voters in the general, yet another thing about your post that was nonsensical.

And you were correct, strawmen ARE illogical. You're welcome to try a logical argument and start again. I'm perfectly happy offering you a clean slate. Or you can cling to the illogic? Either way, I'm happy to pick apart the nonsense.

And perhaps you should leave the parodies to Colbert. Or pick one of the two things he does right and make them either accurate or funny.

Oh, fun. I get to choose between a fascist and either a socialist or a communist. At least I'm free! Yay America. [/exaggeration][/sarcasm]

Seriously. If you Democrats pick Obama, you're sexist. If you pick Hillary, you're racist. What do you do? I didn't vote in the democrat primary in my state because I'm not a democrat. I'm voting in the republican primary only because I greatly prefer Ron Paul over McCain. Once this is over, I will be most active in the Libertarian/Constitutionalist sphere. I've had it with D's and R's. McCain will never get my vote, and I gag at the thought of either Hillary or Obama as President. Third party or write-in are the only viable options for me.

Obama won. Most don't count winning as terrible, but even if one did, he needn't be less terrible.Except the issue with the whole "primary results != general election results" was Obama's losses in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Those count as "wins" now?

Look, as diverting as this pointless, pedantic, "your post wasn't as amusing as you think it was" back-and-forth has been, right now I have thumb I'd rather be banging with a hammer. Happy trails.

Except the issue with the whole "primary results != general election results" was Obama's losses in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Those count as "wins" now?

Winning the nomination counts as a win. The 'whole' issue of the general and the nomination is a 'whole' issue, not three states. The comment was primaries =/= general. Not "these" primaries =/= general.

Meanwhile, if he comes within 20K votes of McCain in IN, then McCain lost.

Also, didn't your candidate have 25% of Republicans come out just to let him know they don't want to vote for him. Uncontested, the guy can barely pull out wins that are better than some of the wins of Obama in contested events. What does one say about a candidate who does poorly without anyone competing against him?

It's fun how much Republicans want to focus on Obama. Otherwise, someone might figure out that McCain doesn't have a chance.

Look, as diverting as this pointless, pedantic, "your post wasn't as amusing as you think it was" back-and-forth has been, right now I have thumb I'd rather be banging with a hammer. Happy trails.

I have to say when I get caught in a fallacy, it annoys me too. I can understand why you're upset.

1. primary wins do not equal general wins
No shit Sherlock. From the posts that I have read here at NSG, it sure seems like that is what a lot od NSGers are putting their stock in, although it is more like stock in caucus wins.

2. looking at an electoral vote map right now before a dem is even selected is silly.
Why? Don't you think looking at a candidates' viability against McCain? Oh that's right you do:

D'OH. Polls show feeling that Obama is a tougher candidate for McCain. This is confirmed by Dems and Reps.

Obama does better against McCain in Virginia. McCain is ahead of both but far ahead of Clinton.

3. Presuming that the election is going to break out just like 2000 and 2004 is just silly
I surely wasn't presuming that at all. I was presuming a Hillary win based on the polls. If you recall, Gore and Kerry both lost?

4. With negative ratings as high as Hillary's she'll never win this many states just because she won them in the primary
You know this how? However, the polls are suggesting that she would win more ECV than Obama.....a surplus of 20+ to win the Presidency.

5. Assuming Obama will not win solidly democratic states is silly
It depends on what you call "solidly democratic states". As you can see by both polls, Obama and Clinton would each have problems in certain "democratic states".

6. Obama has put some red states in play because he has gone with a 50 state strategy. When you look at how close some of the states were in recent elections with a horrible candidate like Kerry, Obama will do much better.
Again, you know this how? What "red states" has Obama put into "play"? By the same token, what blue states become vulnerable with Obama.

7. Obama has the ability to take some pretty bad press and keep moving forward. Hillary has been hitting him with the same talking points the Republicans will be.
The Republicans will mop the floor with Obama. Hillary has been relatively soft on him.

8. Obama has energized a voting population untapped before.
And he has also de-energized a lot of Democratic supporters?

Exit polls: Half of Clinton's supporters won't back Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-half-of-clintons-supporters-wont-back-obama/)

9. Obama will have a better down ballot effect than Hillary would. The Democrats should pick up seats in both the house and the senate.
Again, you know this how?

10. Comparing polling data in May will not be relevant in October.
Yet you have used it yourself.

11. The Republicans may hit Obama hard, but not as hard as Hillary. For all the "standing up to" the "vast right wing conspiracy" still got her husband impeached (I didn't agree with this). So clearly the Republican tactics work just fine on Clintons.
Obama won't know what hit him, if the Republicans can play it as smooth as they did against Gore and especially Kerry. You are a Republican, you should know this.

12. His ground game and ability to raise money are far better than hers.
She would get enough dough to win.

13. She does not have the ability to turn as many states as he can. There are many conservatives (regardless of how much he panders to them) who do not like McCain. This is an opening for Obama. Conversely, people will pick him as the lesser of two evils over Hillary.
From the polls presented, it appears that Obama won't be able to turn too many states into victory, but Clinton would.

14. His intelligence, demeanor, and drive make him more likable than her or McCain. When it comes right down to it there is a popularity contest to this election. It's just the way people are and they do not like her.
It may be a popularity contest and many Dems love Obama, but also, a lot don't love him.

America is not ready for an African American President at this time. The red states are staying red and some of the blue states will fall to the Republicans.

Besides, I kind snickered when I saw your earlier post that suggested that you would be okay with an Obama or a McCain win. You and Corny are certainly sized up right.

America is not ready for an African American President at this time. The red states are staying red and some of the blue states will fall to the Republicans.

Besides, I kind snickered when I saw your earlier post that suggested that you would be okay with an Obama or a McCain win. You and Corny are certainly sized up right.


Heh, like Clinton, you have no problem making the same arguments not matter how absurd they are. I like your oh so enlightened comment about how Obama is the wrong candidate because of his skin color.

And no matter how much evidence against your claims shows up, you just keep chanting that blue state/red state nonsense. Most amusing is that you define "red" states as states that were red when democrats lost the last two cycles. All evidence points to Colorado going blue. Virginia. Iowa. All red states in the last cycle.

My god, that post asks questions we've been answering for the last five months...i-it's stunning...

Personally I think the continuing the debate over Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama is pretty pointless - it's over.

Unless, in some freakish suicidal move, the DNC nominate Hillary Clinton, we're at practically 99.9% certainty that Barack Obama has simply won.

Is it worth starting a new thread - Obama vs McCain - and effectively closing this one?

I like your oh so enlightened comment about how Obama is the wrong candidate because of his skin color.

That's a cheap shot, he's saying it will be a problem, in no way implying it's a problem for him. We can be blind to the fact or we can help fight the racial attacks that will surely come, not from John McCain but from all forms of his support.

There's the video posted yesterday, is he a true American. I've heard people say that if Al Sharpton is going to cause trouble that it will reflect badly on Barack Obama.

Why should it I ask, yet that doesn't mean that it won't.

Why was Reverend Wright perceived to be so damaging when it would not have been an issue if Hillary Clinton's pastor had been caught saying 9/11 was retribution for America's sins? It's a racial issue as much as anything.