NationStates Jolt Archive

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.


You know what? I am so sick of this bullshit argument, which is made based on a very vocal minority of Americans. Americans most definitely ARE ready for a black President. We're ready for a Hispanic President, a female President, an Asian President, a gay President, an atheist President, and every other damned kind of President you can think of. We're Americans. Our country is supposed to be the land of the free, and it's about damned time we started acting like it.

Here's the thing that grinds on me with those 'coalition' arguments-

If Clinton's coalition is so big, so strong, so much better than Obama's, then where the fuck have they been? Why haven't they been able to overcome Obama's? It's the bastard stepchild of the stupid electability argument, which again-if you're so fucking electable how come you haven't managed to win this fucking election?

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..

I didn't call him a racist. However, after months of arguing and making all kinds of different claims comes down to the DNC is making a mistake because he's black.


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.

It'll be a factor. It'll be the only reason this is even remotely a race. McCain is in deep doodoo and given the recent desperation of his candidacy, I think that's obvious to everyone including McCain.

Once again, and I think Ardchoille's point on this was good, if we call ourselves reasonable people, and if we are calling for united support for a Democratic president, I really feel people should let this particular debate go, let posts remain unanswered here and concentrate on Obama/McCain.

As said, these debates have been point by point debated numerous times, the fact remains that the nomination race should be over and it can only continue if people let it.

As far as I can see, Senator Obama is looking to focus on John McCain, any supporter of his should do the same and forget about trying to make a point that has more than sufficiently been made by voters across the country.

Here's the thing that grinds on me with those 'coalition' arguments-

If Clinton's coalition is so big, so strong, so much better than Obama's, then where the fuck have they been? Why haven't they been able to overcome Obama's? It's the bastard stepchild of the stupid electability argument, which again-if you're so fucking electable how come you haven't managed to win this fucking election?

You know even after getting an extra 8% boost from people who said plainly they have no intention of supporting her in the general, she still can't manage to win.

You know what? I am so sick of this bullshit argument, which is made based on a very vocal minority of Americans. Americans most definitely ARE ready for a black President. We're ready for a Hispanic President, a female President, an Asian President, a gay President, an atheist President, and every other damned kind of President you can think of. We're Americans. Our country is supposed to be the land of the free, and it's about damned time we started acting like it.

Matt, you know we love you, but that has to be one of the most incredibly naive things I've ever heard you say. We are most certainly not, as a nation, ready for a gay President, an atheist President, a Muslim President, etc. This country is simply not that progressive, nor that free of religiously motivated bias to accept anything that, for the most part, isn't a prim and proper WASP. IF we do manage to elect an African American President, it will be against the wishes of a LARGE number of vile, vapid racists that populate this country, whatever ideals we CLAIM to have.

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.

So it's equally silly to assume Obama will win solidly Republican states, right?

Oh, wait...

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?

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.

How did you arrive at this "statistic"? Your Magic-8 Ball?

Then why are you already predicting such wild success for Obama based on May polling numbers?

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?

OK, these are the lyrics from Obama Girl's latest video, right?

Ok, this all comes down to the 50 state strategy basically. Obama has built large grass roots organizations in every state. I'm predicting success for Obama because he truly is a different type of candidate. He has a few registered Republicans (myself included) here who are supporting him. You look at the man who outraises fricken Clinton and they both are killing McCain. How does he raise all the record amounts of money. Of course there have been people who were able to donate a large sum money. Most people sent in 5,10,25,50, and 100 dollars. Anyone who can get that many people to send them money to support their campaign sure has a lot of pull. He's managed to weather the big storms :cool: and keep winning. Do you think these large totals of money to him are from people who are not going to vote for him. The old politics in Washington is pick a few states you see yourself as too weak to win, and have good returns in the electoral college. And yes, in the end it's about who people like. Barack Obama is setting up for success.

Matt, you know we love you, but that has to be one of the most incredibly naive things I've ever heard you say. We are most certainly not, as a nation, ready for a gay President, an atheist President, a Muslim President, etc. This country is simply not that progressive, nor that free of religiously motivated bias to accept anything that, for the most part, isn't a prim and proper WASP. IF we do manage to elect an African American President, it will be against the wishes of a LARGE number of vile, vapid racists that populate this country, whatever ideals we CLAIM to have.

Maybe so...

It just pisses me off how much we claim to stand for freedom and democracy yet any candidate that's not WASP faces huge amounts of hardship just trying to be recognized for their quality. I'd very much prefer it if we could dump this idiotic racism, sexism, and religiousism and whatnot and just vote the best qualified person for the job.

It will be interesting to see if the super delegates do to Obama what SCOTUS did to Al Gore.

Winning the nomination counts as a win.Except Obama hasn't won it yet. He just keeps stumbling along. Perhaps at some point he'll finally crack 2,025, but until then, don't go counting chickens.

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?OK, this is funny. Who is/was "my" candidate? I could have voted for Daffy Duck for all you know.

I have to say when I get caught in a fallacy, it annoys me too. I can understand why you're upset.I know you're intentionally trying to provoke me, but I don't care.

Does being a smug, superior, humorless little tool come naturally to you, or is it a special skill you have to work at in debate class?

Go on, report me.

I'd like to see Kathleen Sebelius be Obamas VP

I'm pulling for Bill Richardson myself...but I'm not picky.

In other words, the Clinton camp will not settle for a compromise.

This is news?

"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..."

Her hypocrisy on this issue is stunning...the fact that she thinks it will somehow go unnoticed by informed voters is even worse.

Aparrently, I'm both wrong, and stupid. :rolleyes:

If Clinton's coalition is so big, so strong, so much better than Obama's, then where the fuck have they been? Why haven't they been able to overcome Obama's? It's the bastard stepchild of the stupid electability argument, which again-if you're so fucking electable how come you haven't managed to win this fucking election?

I heard she just had to loan $6 million more of her own money to her campaign just to keep the wheels running.

Seriously...if you're so electable, why is nobody putting up the dough??

You know what? I am so sick of this bullshit argument, which is made based on a very vocal minority of Americans. Americans most definitely ARE ready for a black President. We're ready for a Hispanic President, a female President, an Asian President, a gay President, an atheist President, and every other damned kind of President you can think of. We're Americans. Our country is supposed to be the land of the free, and it's about damned time we started acting like it.
Well America is the land of the almost free, but with that freedom comes those that carry beliefs that none of the above are acceptable as Presidential material. Some Americans will never vote for Republicans and some will never vote for Democrats. There are Democrats that won't vote for Obama because he is black and there are some Democrats that won't vote for Hillary because she is a woman, and on and on it goes. It is called prejudice and it exists, and yes it is a problem. I think that of the list you made, that atheists and gays would find it far more difficult than the others to get elected. Heck, there are Americans here that don't want Floridians and Michiganites to even have a say in who their Presidential candidate should be, because their "trusted" leaders broke the rules. Yea for democracy.....

4 more supers for obama today, including one switcher. clinton's last remaining lead is now down to 6.5 - less than she had when she announced her candidacy.

I know you're intentionally trying to provoke me, but I don't care.

Does being a smug, superior, humorless little tool come naturally to you, or is it a special skill you have to work at in debate class?

Go on, report me.

He doesn't have to, I read this thread for my own masochistic pleasure. Step back a bit, we had enough flaming yesterday.

I like your oh so enlightened comment about how Obama is the wrong candidate because of his skin color.
Like Barringtonia said "that's a cheap shot", but I am used to those from you.

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.
I think you missed that whole point I was making about Bill Clinton's wins in "red states" greatly assisted by a strong 3rd party conservative candidate stealing votes from the GOP, but go ahead and keep assuming that you are always right and that your opponent is some delusional outcast from another world.

All evidence points to Colorado going blue. Virginia. Iowa. All red states in the last cycle.
Colorado possible (source). Virginia......show me the that "all evidence points to Virginia going blue". You can't because you are making it up. Iowa was red in the last election by 5,973 votes but was blue from 1988 until Kerry lost it in 2004. Your argument is weak.

Nevermind the fact that your candidate is polling poorly in PA, Ohio and Florida vs. McCain compared to Clinton.

Enough already......

He doesn't have to, I read this thread for my own masochistic pleasure. Step back a bit, we had enough flaming yesterday.

My sympathies. That couldn't have been fun.

Damn, I underbid again. He's already up to 10 with 3 switchers.

yeah, and we've since had two more come out for obama, and one for clinton. oh, and at some point today utah is going to appoint an obama-backing add-on.

so that puts her super d lead down to 4.5 by democratic convention watch's count (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/)

edit:
t-t-t-t-t-time paradox

marty, we've got to go back...to the future!

Colorado possible (source). Virginia......show me the that "all evidence points to Virginia going blue". You can't because you are making it up. Iowa was red in the last election by 5,973 votes but was blue from 1988 until Kerry lost it in 2004. Your argument is weak.Virginia is a purple state, and last election, they sent a Democrat to the Senate.

4 more supers for obama today, including one switcher. clinton's last remaining lead is now down to 6.5 - less than she had when she announced her candidacy.

Damn, I underbid again. He's already up to 10 with 3 switchers.

Like Barringtonia said "that's a cheap shot", but I am used to those from you.

It's a cheap shot to notice that you explicitly attributed Obama's electability coming down to race? I didn't call you a racist. In fact, I'll plainly say I don't currently remember, know of, or believe to exist evidence you are a racist. I simply said it's pretty lame at this point to claim Obama is the wrong candidate because he's black. You did.


I think you missed that whole point I was making about Bill Clinton's wins in "red states" greatly assisted by a strong 3rd party conservative candidate stealing votes from the GOP, but go ahead and keep assuming that you are always right and that your opponent is some delusional outcast from another world.

Or we could, oh, I don't know, look at ALL the evidence. Bill Clinton winning them isn't the only evidence. For example, how much closer do certain states get when you add in an appropriate percentage of Nader's vote to Kerry and Bush? What about the consistent polling that has McCain losing some red states despite there being no candidate against him and with a current democratic split? Evidence, CH. I know you know what it is. Don't cherrypick it. Use ALL of it.


Colorado possible (source). Virginia......show me the that "all evidence points to Virginia going blue". You can't because you are making it up. Iowa was red in the last election by 5,973 votes but was blue from 1988 until Kerry lost it in 2004. Your argument is weak.

See, this is why I get tired of arguing with you? Making it up? We've been talking about this since February and the evidence has been given you repeatedly. Part of that evidence, you claimed as your own and used to make your own argument. You've since claimed SurveyUSA is one of the more reliable pollsters (except you only seem to like them when they agree with you).



Nevermind the fact that your candidate is polling poorly in PA, Ohio and Florida vs. McCain compared to Clinton.

Enough already......

Polling poorly? Winning is poorly. He's beating McCain in PA. Who cares if loses FL? I don't. Florida is Republican. Deal with it. As far as any other states, dems are still divided and Obama is still winning most of the polled contests for the overall general. That says a lot. In every poll I've analyzed, several of which I analyzed publicly here, if you remove the states that are within margin of error and thus up for grabs, Obama does better than McCain and Clinton.

Except Obama hasn't won it yet. He just keeps stumbling along. Perhaps at some point he'll finally crack 2,025, but until then, don't go counting chickens.

Yes, he hasn't won. Unless you're paying attention that is. There is NO reasonable chance he will lose this nomination. None.

We could also talk about how he might literally catch on fire before August, but I'd rather stick to talking about things that are reasonable likely.

OK, this is funny. Who is/was "my" candidate? I could have voted for Daffy Duck for all you know.

Look, man, you wanna debate, then do so. The nonsense "I'm not making a claim" arguments are just tiresome. It doesn't take a abacus and 50 sheets of paper to calculate your motives. I recognize that some people think that as long as they never SAY their motives that they think no one will ever add up 2 and 2.

Worse, even ignoring that you DO have a position, even your attacks were illogical. You presented a logical fallacy on which your argument hinged. I simply pointed it out.

If you have other arguments make them. I promise to point out if they are illogical, but I also promise to accept them if they are valid, much like I do when some have argued for Hillary. I believe both Hillary and McCain have strong points and, obviously, Obama has some weak points, but I'm not going to allow that translate into broadbrushing a candidate.

I know you're intentionally trying to provoke me, but I don't care.

Does being a smug, superior, humorless little tool come naturally to you, or is it a special skill you have to work at in debate class?

Go on, report me.

I didn't have to.

Look you presented a strawman. I called you on it. That's part of debate.

You then trolled NSG suggesting we're all illogical.

A. This is another fallacy called a gross generalization. This is made particularly spurious since there is ample evidence AGAINST your claim if you are willing and able to collect it. Gross generalizations are sometimes good rhetorical tools, but it's still not logical.

B. It's not an excuse for you making an illogical argument.

As such, my response was to concede the only part of your sampling of NSG that I know for sure you have personal knowledge of. I discounted the rest of your claim due to a lack of evidence.

I'm not sorry you're upset, mainly because I think you upset yourself. I am an agressive debator who plays within the rules of the site. If you'd like to engage, it helps to keep this in mind. I'm not going to allow your rhetorical devices to stick when I can actively point out the illogic of strawmen, gross generalizations and ad hominem attacks. And since you gave me the ammunition, I'm certainly going to use your claim about General as a bucket to put that evidence into and use against you.

Again, I can see why this is upsetting, but frankly, these are a part of debate. Don't put people being logical on the table if you don't want such a claim analyzed.

I am both smug and superior (not quite sure how that's an insult). I presume you're calling me a tool because of my immense utility. No? Hmmmm.... As far as the humorless part, well, I laughed when I read that if that provides an evidence. I know most of what I said here, and in many posts, sounds harsh, but I promise I write it with a smile on my face and no ill-will intended. I'm not one of the guys who takes this all personally, and you're not going to catch me bitching about how you piss me off to my NSG friends on Trillian.

Relax, remember that none of this actually matters, and that, you'd probably enjoy having a beer with me (assuming you're old enough) as long as we don't start debating how to pronounce Ruffy's name.

yeah, and we've since had two more come out for obama, and one for clinton. oh, and at some point today utah is going to appoint an obama-backing add-on.

so that puts her super d lead down to 4.5 by democratic convention watch's count (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/)

edit:
t-t-t-t-t-time paradox

marty, we've got to go back...to the future!

Quoting to make people see this. I actually almost missed this post.

Like Barringtonia said "that's a cheap shot", but I am used to those from you.


I think you missed that whole point I was making about Bill Clinton's wins in "red states" greatly assisted by a strong 3rd party conservative candidate stealing votes from the GOP, but go ahead and keep assuming that you are always right and that your opponent is some delusional outcast from another world.


Colorado possible (source). Virginia......show me the that "all evidence points to Virginia going blue". You can't because you are making it up. Iowa was red in the last election by 5,973 votes but was blue from 1988 until Kerry lost it in 2004. Your argument is weak.

Nevermind the fact that your candidate is polling poorly in PA, Ohio and Florida vs. McCain compared to Clinton.

Enough already......

Iowa can easily go blue being that it was so close. Obama is not polling poorly in those states.

Nationally head to head they are within 1 point of each other by rcp average.

As far as the rest of those states go Obama is doing well already.

McCain vs. Obama in PA is a difference of 1.2 plus for Obama. Not to mention that the most recent quinnapiac of registered voters has Obama up by 9.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html

Hillary is up as well, but a win is a win is it not?

Ohio is a statistical dead heat with. Latest poll shows McCain up 1.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html

Obama is up by a rcp avg. of 6.3 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_mccain_vs_obama-209.html

Obama is up in NJ by 9.3 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_mccain_vs_obama-250.html

People are coming around to Obama as it looks like he will be the nominee. Obama has now equaled Clinton is endorsements by members on capital hill.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-catches-clinton-in-capitol-hill-endorsements-2008-05-08.html

This shows a little more of what his power and influence would be should he win the general.

In all, Obama and Clinton now have the public support of 99 lawmakers and it is likely that Obama will hit the century mark first.

Since his big win in North Carolina’s primary Tuesday and a close loss on the same night in Indiana, most of the media have treated Obama as the de facto Democratic nominee. While most lawmakers, fearing that a rift in the party could endanger a victory against presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the fall, are careful not to tell Clinton to quit the race, several Democratic members of Congress have expressed that there has been a significant shift in the race.

Obama is also up 6-12 in Oregon right now. Kentucky and WV were never going to be close for him and they are wide open right now. But, there are very few delegates at stake there so... no biggie in that regard.

How long until you think Clinton calls it quits?

I'm feeling like it might be within a week perhaps. Someone might finally be able to talk some sense into her if she allows herself a moment of clarity.

How long until you think Clinton calls it quits?

I'm feeling like it might be within a week perhaps. Someone might finally be able to talk some sense into her if she allows herself a moment of clarity.

Nah. I strongly suspect she'll stick it out at least until the 31st for the discussions on MI and FL.

I found this and it's hilarious. Monty Python and the Black Knight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-tIfwGvDf0

for some reason my link button is frozen so please excuse that it's not hypelinked.

Nah. I strongly suspect she'll stick it out at least until the 31st for the discussions on MI and FL.

hmmm good point


She should cut her losses as soon as possible.

yeah, and we've since had two more come out for obama, and one for clinton. oh, and at some point today utah is going to appoint an obama-backing add-on.

so that puts her super d lead down to 4.5 by democratic convention watch's count (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/)

edit:
t-t-t-t-t-time paradox

marty, we've got to go back...to the future!

ok, so apparently utah is taking a siesta and phoning it in tomorrow instead. but that's ok, as three (maybe four? shit, they're coming in fast today) more supers have declared for obama since then - a dnc member from cali, the sc state party vice chair, and the nm add-on.

J, i think i underestimated.

edit: seriously, why are you guys apparently a half hour in the future? jolt is even worse than usual today.

hmmm good point


She should cut her losses as soon as possible.

I just read that she said she plans to hang until a week after the final contest to convince supers. Of course, there are all kinds of things that could change that. For example, if enough supers declare to make Obama the candidate even if we include MI and FL, then there really is no argument for her to stick it out. Also, if Obama wins PR, KY or WV, then that would certainly make it difficult for her to continue. I don't suspect that last bit will happen though.

She's made to much of a case for staying in to leave at this point. Virtually nothing has changed. That's actually the problem. She needed things to change.

I just read that she said she plans to hang until a week after the final contest to convince supers. Of course, there are all kinds of things that could change that. For example, if enough supers declare to make Obama the candidate even if we include MI and FL, then there really is no argument for her to stick it out. Also, if Obama wins PR, KY or WV, then that would certainly make it difficult for her to continue. I don't suspect that last bit will happen though.

She's made to much of a case for staying in to leave at this point. Virtually nothing has changed. That's actually the problem. She needed things to change.

Exactly. She needed a game changing experience to turn old mo her way. That's the only way she would actually be able to convince enough supers to go along with her. As of right now the tide is turning the other way. There will be come supers who wait it out, but there are plenty who are weighing in right now. 3 who've switched in the last few days. As time goes on we'll see a few more defectors.

Exactly. She needed a game changing experience to turn old mo her way. That's the only way she would actually be able to convince enough supers to go along with her. As of right now the tide is turning the other way. There will be come supers who wait it out, but there are plenty who are weighing in right now. 3 who've switched in the last few days. As time goes on we'll see a few more defectors.

The writing has been on the wall for some time, but it keeps getting larger, more bold and more permanent. As her supporters leave her, the indication is clear. She's already lost 3 (for a net of zero, I believe) since IN and he's already gained 10.

EDIT: By the by, even if MI and FL are added in, Obama will likely only need about 100 supers out of the remaining 60. Several have already said they will vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, let's say five, though I personally believe there are more. And let's say about five more go to each camp by following who won in their district or state. That leaves us with about 245 supers left with Obama needing 90 of them. That's just over a third of them going to Obama out of a group that has strongly favored Obama for three months.

The time for nananana, nananana, hey, hey, hey, goodbye was a bit earlier, but we can certainly say it louder now. Good thing February 5 didn't represent a shift in Obama's favor.

ok, so apparently utah is taking a siesta and phoning it in tomorrow instead. but that's ok, as three (maybe four? shit, they're coming in fast today) more supers have declared for obama since then - a dnc member from cali, the sc state party vice chair, and the nm add-on.

J, i think i underestimated.

edit: seriously, why are you guys apparently a half hour in the future? jolt is even worse than usual today.

and now we have to add rep mazie hirono from hawaii to the mix. at this rate obama will pass clinton's lead according to dcw's count in, like, i don't know, 35 minutes? she's only 1.5 up now.


and, hell yeah, the flux capacitor worked!

I am a little disappointed. He's not giving it a pass, he's opening offices, but I'd like to see him like he has been.

What's different?

I've certainly gotten the "Please go to WV and help out" and "please give us money for WV" emails. Is he running less ads or something?

Also, why the heck are all of my posts today in the wrong place? This one got moved up before posts from hours ago!

Will one of the people who's way out in the future tell me how the remaining primaries are going to turn out?

What's different?

I've certainly gotten the "Please go to WV and help out" and "please give us money for WV" emails. Is he running less ads or something?

Also, why the heck are all of my posts today in the wrong place? This one got moved up before posts from hours ago!


what is the url you are posting from? http://forums.jolt.co.uk/? Or is there a number attached? I'm guessing the time on one of their servers is off.


edit: erm - nvrmnd - I post from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/ and most of my posts have been at the proper time but apparently that's changed.

Alright, I tried to post this this morning but apparently it didn't take...so I'll post it again (keeping in mind I made this before the 6 new supers today made their announcement...)


I hate to say this, but I think that Obama is about to make a Clinton sized mistake. While he's shifted his campaign to general election states, all the while being careful not to himself say it's over, he's conceded to a degree West Virgina and Kentucky. Thing is, he's trailing in West Virginia by as much as 30 to 40 points-front runner, presumptive, or not, that's going to be a mighty blow. It's the same kind of mighty blow that he used to turn this race against a all but presumptive front runner. Granted this might be, in all likely hood is, a too little too late gain by Clinton, it's the kind of anchor in the mud that can make the time between now and Denver unrepairably messy.

Jay Cost at RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html) has put together Clinton's 'perfect storm' scenario for Clinton to rise from the ashes and pull this off, and while even he doesn't buy all the things lining up to make it happen, it seems like a mistake to leave that door open.

It could be argued that a week is simply not enough time to over come such an insurmountable lead and rather than look like you tried and then failed you can take the lumps with enough of a lead that no matter how bad the loss you come out ahead, and certainly we've seen that narrative used by the Clinton campaign before.

But really, Obama doesn't want, or shouldn't want, to end this thing with a few last drubbings on him while she tries to pump up his 'not ready for prime time' status. I think next Tuesday will be a mis-step for him that's going to drag this thing out while Clinton pulls the pin.

On the other end of the spectrum (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/house_gop_shifts_into_panic_mo.html), we are starting to see this down ballot effect and what it's going to mean to McCain in the general election, playing defense in his own backyard-in states he'll win but will still have to defend for the good of the party-
After losing two previously Republican-held seats in special elections earlier this year, House GOP aides worry their party is on the brink of an election year catastrophe, and as a key test looms on Tuesday, the party is already pulling out all the stops. House Republicans, sources say, are using every resource possible in advance of next week's special election to fill Senator Roger Wicker's old House seat, in northern Mississippi.
This isn't a hotly contested area, either-
The district should be no trouble to hold. President Bush carried the seat by twenty five points in 2004, and Wicker never had a problem holding on for re-election.
But things have changed-
But after Democrats picked up seats once held by former Reps. Denny Hastert, in Illinois, and Richard Baker, in Louisiana, and after the Democratic candidate in Mississippi narrowly missed avoiding a runoff election in the April 22 all-party first round, officials on Capitol Hill started to panic.
Look at the numbers involved-
In hopes of avoiding another special election loss, which would almost certainly be seen as a harbinger of a disastrous November to come, the national party has spent heavily on bolstering Republican candidate Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, Mississippi, prior to Tuesday's election. The national party has spent more than $1 million on the seat, which includes about 150,000 pieces of mail and two television ads that are still on the air. Freedom's Watch, an independent organization that will aid Republican cnadidates this Fall, has also waded in with more than $500,000 in television advertising, mailings, phone calls and other activity. Local GOP officials, including Wicker, Governor Haley Barbour and Senator Thad Cochran, have been stumping with and for Davis in recent weeks.

Republicans are also calling in bigger guns: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has visited the district, and Vice President Dick Cheney will even make a rare election-eve appearance at a rally with Davis. That the district is one in which Cheney is not seen as a liability, though, speaks to its inherent conservatism and what should be Republicans' ease in carrying it.

"We need money and boots on the ground," Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland told Real Clear Politics. Westmoreland recently gave a presentation to fellow Republicans stress the importance of their involvement. "We need to do the best we can to make sure our people know how important this election is."
This is money and resources to simply defend the backyard. And this isn't an isolated concern-
In an open letter published by Human Events, a conservative news service, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich became the most prominent Republican to speak publicly on his party's troubles. Calling the two losses a "sharp wake up call," Gingrich called for an emergency meeting of House Republicans to come up with a new action plan by the Memorial Day recess. "Without change we could face a catastrophic election this fall," Gingrich warned. "Without change the Republican Party in the House could revert to the permanent minority status it had from 1930 to 1994."

And then there's the infighting of their own-
"The conference was shaken by the two losses," one House GOP leadership aide told Real Clear Politics. "We just couldn't get it done." The fallout has encouraged a brewing feud between House Majority Leader John Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Cole, two top Republicans who have spent much of the past year fighting. And while other Capitol Hill Republicans are almost unanimous in agreeing the trouble is not all Cole's fault, someone has to take the hit. "The two offices are positioning themselves to avoid blame or to lay blame," the aide said.

This is the down-ballot effect we've been talking about, this is the kind of game that McCain is forced to play in November, the kind of game that is easier if he faces an opponent playing the same old +1 electoral game but one that is much harder against a 50-state grass roots candidate.

Also, why the heck are all of my posts today in the wrong place? This one got moved up before posts from hours ago!
I've time-warped myself today: not on a single thread, which appears to be impossible, but I notice when I go back to General that the threads with me as last poster are in reverse order from when I actually replied to them.

A glimmer of hope... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/09/dems.wrap/index.html)

Despite those efforts, the Clinton camp already appears to be planning an exit strategy, according to Lawrence O'Donnell, a Huffington Post contributor who cited Clinton insiders.

"They are saying that Hillary will be out of the race by June 15," O'Donnell said Friday on CNN's "American Morning."

"What the senior campaign official has told me is that they will go through the final votes on June 3.

"Remember, Hillary is going to win maybe three of the elections, and Obama is going to win maybe three elections coming out of it," he said, referring to the remaining six contests. Video Watch what O'Donnell says Clinton insiders are saying behind doors »

O'Donnell said the Clinton campaign then would make its case to the superdelegates for about a week after the primaries ended.

"The superdelegates have no chance of moving over to Hillary Clinton in a week," he said. "So for the Clinton campaign to say we will only make the case for a week, and then by June 15, we will have a nominee, that is to say she will drop out."

A glimmer of hope... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/09/dems.wrap/index.html)

You're late. I already commented on this. WINNER!!!

Alright, I tried to post this this morning but apparently it didn't take...so I'll post it again (keeping in mind I made this before the 6 new supers today made their announcement...)


I hate to say this, but I think that Obama is about to make a Clinton sized mistake. While he's shifted his campaign to general election states, all the while being careful not to himself say it's over, he's conceded to a degree West Virgina and Kentucky. Thing is, he's trailing in West Virginia by as much as 30 to 40 points-front runner, presumptive, or not, that's going to be a mighty blow. It's the same kind of mighty blow that he used to turn this race against a all but presumptive front runner. Granted this might be, in all likely hood is, a too little too late gain by Clinton, it's the kind of anchor in the mud that can make the time between now and Denver unrepairably messy.

I read this too and I think he's a very grave error. One big reason is that he touts a 50-state strategy. Now is not the time to stop. Even if Clinton bowed out right now, Obama should campaign like it matters. It's good for down-ballot candidates and it's consistent.

You're late. I already commented on this. WINNER!!!
Bah, BAH! I say...That's what I get for scanning...
I read this too and I think he's a very grave error. One big reason is that he touts a 50-state strategy. Now is not the time to stop. Even if Clinton bowed out right now, Obama should campaign like it matters. It's good for down-ballot candidates and it's consistent.
I am a little disappointed. He's not giving it a pass, he's opening offices, but I'd like to see him like he has been.

What's different?

I've certainly gotten the "Please go to WV and help out" and "please give us money for WV" emails. Is he running less ads or something?
It's not his full court press we've been used to seeing, but he isn't giving it a pass all together.

Also, why the heck are all of my posts today in the wrong place? This one got moved up before posts from hours ago!
It might be because...YOU'RE A WITCH! A WITCH!!! BURN HER, BURN H-...ahem...um...sorry, um...don't know what came...yeah...I, uh, I don't know...

Bah, BAH! I say...That's what I get for scanning...

I am a little disappointed. He's not giving it a pass, he's opening offices, but I'd like to see him like he has been.

Yeah, I want to see him go all out for the entire thing. It's time to start dunking in order to intimidate the opponents.

Also, he now has SEVEN supers today. I so underestimated. The waterfall is beginning.

EDIT: Make that NINE and a union. NINE in one day. Holy cow. Considering even with FL and MI counted he only needs about 100, that's enormous.

Make that NINE and a union. NINE in one day. Holy cow. Considering even with FL and MI counted he only needs about 100, that's enormous.

yeah, looks like we're on par for having oregon seal up the nomination for him. poor puerto rico, montana, and south dakota. this close.

though in the interest of party building he'll wind up doing some victory laps through at least the actual states. especially increasingly blue montana.

yeah, looks like we're on par for having oregon seal up the nomination for him. poor puerto rico, montana, and south dakota. this close.

though in the interest of party building he'll wind up doing some victory laps through at least the actual states. especially increasingly blue montana.

unless he has a secret plan to force statehood on puerto rico....
don't mind me, just seeing if i can get by without needing to find a source of 1.21 gigawatts of power

edit: success, maybe?

unless he has a secret plan to force statehood on puerto rico....
don't mind me, just seeing if i can get by without needing to find a source of 1.21 gigawatts of power

edit: success, maybe?

To the Clocktower. 'cept they fixed it.

I still hope he presses hard in every state. It's important he demonstrate that it wasn't just a winning a strategy but a point of view.

I wonder what she'll do when she realizes that even with MI and FL, in the best scenario for her, that he has enough?

The latest Democrat nomination thread is now here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556482).