NationStates Jolt Archive

I would not put it past her but I do not think she'll run as an independent.

On another site, I came up with a possible outcome to just that very scenario.

http://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php?action=indpred&id=4379

Red=Obama 90
Blue=McCain 257
Green=Clinton 191

No electoral majority; vote goes to the House.

On another site, I came up with a possible outcome to just that very scenario.

http://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php?action=indpred&id=4379

Red=Obama 90
Blue=McCain 257
Green=Clinton 191

No electoral majority; vote goes to the House.

That's just dumb. There's pretty much no chance that Dems have so many votes that they could keep McCain out with her winning states and competing against Obama.

That's just dumb. There's pretty much no chance that Dems have so many votes that they could keep McCain out with her winning states and competing against Obama.


Was calling me stupid really necessary?

I don't know that Clinton wants to win as much as she wants Obama to lose.

At this point, you might be right. The theory that she continues to stay in the race so as to tarnish Obama's image, helping McCain to victory, which in turn gives her a chance to run in 2012 (presumably her last real shot at winning) is gaining traction the longer she stays in. I, personally, wouldn't put it past her. She's hell-bent on "redeeming" herself and her husband, and having one more chance to accomplish the ambitious agenda the Clintons set forth in '93. Of course, in the process, she's ignoring the fact that if McCain wins the White House this year, she'll delay any chance of help for the middle class for another 4, possibly 8 years. I think this is an example of how ambition has trumped principle.

Was calling me stupid really necessary?

Not you. The premise. I assumed you were just posting it because we were discussing it.

Was calling me stupid really necessary?

Haven't you learned the rules of this forum by now? The proper way to debate an issue is by reverting to elementary school tactics, albeit usually with more profanity.

Haven't you learned the rules of this forum by now? The proper way to debate an issue is by reverting to elementary school tactics, albeit usually with more profanity.

No one called him stupid. I called the premise stupid and I explained why.

"There's pretty much no chance that Dems have so many votes that they could keep McCain out with her winning states and competing against Obama."

Rather than address the argument I made, you both chose to focus on the fact that I called the premise dumb.

So how about you drop the trolling and address the arguments.

I haven't bothered to read any of the posts between the original one and page eleven (I guess I just don't have the stamina), but looking at the two posters currently arguing about the use of the word 'stupid' I'm going to guess that someone has also made a comparison to Hitler or other ruthless dictators...

So I'll offer a bit of vitality to the conversation, if you care to read:

Hillary, Obama, and McCain don't really matter to me: they all care very little about the environment, from what I've seen of two years of intense coverage by the media. So I have no real stake in this election.

BUT I do think that democrats have more credibility than republicans when it comes to the environment, given their history and their values, and I think one of the democratic candidates had better give in... And looking at the race, it seems Hillary is the more likely choice.

Now if she wants to be vindictive about it and tear Obama to shreds because she wants to see him lose and doesn't care anyways because she's a closet republican (my friends have taken to calling her Hitlery), that's fine. It's just endangering the Democrats' chances of winning.

Likewise, if Obama wants to assume what much of the media is already telling him (and you know, they run our country, those folks in the media), that the nomination is his, then that's fine too. Though he also shares in the blame just for being a faction in this little split.

Either way, those two had better work something out, or we'll have a Republican in office. And I can tell you, from my experience with the crazy neo-cons in the past eight years (you won't believe how many people I know who don't believe in global warming), it's probably worse for the environment and its supporters that that's going to happen...

If I had to choose, it would be Obama, 'cause he'd probably be less likely to sell us out in a political deal... I bet Hillary would sacrifice us for just an ounce more of power (like she did our civil liberties when she decided to condemn and try to outlaw flag burning with the Republicans).

I'm all for continuing, but she's painting it like they're stealing this race from her and it's going to result in a lot of bitterness. It wasn't stolen from her. She lost. Not "is losing". She LOST. There is no reasonable way she wins at this point without splitting the party. It doesn't matter what happens in the last contests, if they give her the race, she will not win. The entire black population will have been alienated.

So here's the problem. She can either try to bring her backers into the fold by showing them that Obama is the legitimate nominee, or she can continue to protest and create a bunch of protest voters in the general. This doesn't end with her beating Obama. It simply doesn't. Now, is the time to begin your exit, Mrs. Clinton. Please. It's for the best.

Disclaimer: No, I'm not saying quit. I'm saying accept that you've lost. Run out the remaining contests without try to hobble the team that beat you.

I'm at the races this weekend and there was a car that screamed way out ahead of the pack (serioiusly this happened, I'm not making it up for the analogy, it was the Formula BMW race in Monterey) only to crap out a few laps to the end and I thought, "thats why you race to the flag." And so I thought about Clinton-but even though we call it a race, I think the better metaphor is baseball-if you end the ninth inning at bat behind, they don't let the other team take at bats to run up the score, you're done, the game is over, take it gracefully.

Granted that there is nothing in her narrative that allows her to quit now. And sure she should run out the clock. There are issues that should be addressed in the party. But she shouldn't be kidding herself or her supporters about her chances.

I haven't bothered to read any of the posts between the original one and page eleven (I guess I just don't have the stamina), but looking at the two posters currently arguing about the use of the word 'stupid' I'm going to guess that someone has also made a comparison to Hitler or other ruthless dictators...


Swing and a miss...

haha, so apparently clinton's nevada caucus delegates didn't bother turning out in full force for the state convention. which means obama picks up another pledged delegate there.

Oh, I see the light now! It wasn't all the negatives with that bitch that dragged her down but it was the media (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10420.html).

Right....

Pull my finger... It has bells on it! :D
The greatest cringer in all of that is her trying to sell herself as the outsider fighting all the insiders...
Clinton’s anti-media ad may tap a vein of distrust of the D.C. establishment that runs deep in the Pacific Northwest, thanks to its geographic and cultural distance from the East Coast, said Tim Hibbitts, a Portland-based pollster.

Dude, you're Hillary Clinton, you're the crunchy nuget center of the establishment...you could only be more inside by being Clinton Kennedy....

And then there's the ready on day one to catch on to the election just about when it's done=
Taken together, the three ads illustrate the nearly 180-degree pivot Clinton’s campaign has made since she entered the race early last year as the overwhelming favorite to secure the Democratic nomination.

Back then, she criticized the anti-corporate, anti-special interest rhetoric of her chief rivals Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as overly simplistic. She pledged to work with all sides to forge compromises. And her campaign encouraged media characterizations of her as the inevitable nominee.

Good grief. We haven't seen someone squander good will like this since GW...


haha, so apparently clinton's nevada caucus delegates didn't bother turning out in full force for the state convention. which means obama picks up another pledged delegate there.
She can't even get the people she's already convinced motivated? Damn. I don't like this way of picking up delegates, but the conditions are at least comedic...

She can't even get the people she's already convinced motivated? Damn. I don't like this way of picking up delegates, but the conditions are at least comedic...

yup. now granted, there is usually a fairly significant drop off in attendance at the higher level state conventions. but in this case it was a 3 to 1 ratio of clinton delegates staying home vs obama's people. you can just sense the excitement for clinton, can't you?

Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html)
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/JohnCampanelli/portlandsi3.png

fucking christ, that's an el-presidente-for-life crowd

Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html)
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/JohnCampanelli/portlandsi3.png

fucking christ, that's an el-presidente-for-life crowd

Is it? That looks like a normal crowd size to me...

Is it? That looks like a normal crowd size to me...

You are aware that getting 40,000 people would have broken the record for largest Obama crowd?

This almost doubled that, stretching half a mile back from the stage.

You are aware that getting 40,000 people would have broken the record for largest Obama crowd?

This almost doubled that, stretching half a mile back from the stage.

Oh, I just looked at the picture, not the article. That IS huge!

Is it? That looks like a normal crowd size to me...

what crowds do you hang out in?

That's just dumb. There's pretty much no chance that Dems have so many votes that they could keep McCain out with her winning states and competing against Obama.
Entirely possible i.e. not so dumb?

I suppose you think this is "just dumb" too?

Electoral Votes: Clinton 279 McCain 242 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May18.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI


Electoral Votes: Obama 237 McCain 290 Ties 11

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May18.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI

Record Obama Crowd, the Size of a City (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html)
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/JohnCampanelli/portlandsi3.png

fucking christ, that's an el-presidente-for-life crowd

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/LOLPrez/fqjTuKvlFa_Shopped.jpg

Is it? That looks like a normal crowd size to me...
Here in the UK, Gordon Brown/David Cameron would be lucky if their own Cabinet turned up to listen to them. :p

Entirely possible i.e. not so dumb?

I suppose you think this is "just dumb" too?

Electoral Votes: Clinton 279 McCain 242 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May18.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI


Electoral Votes: Obama 237 McCain 290 Ties 11

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May18.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI

Um, what does that have to do with the premise I called dumb. I was talking about both candidates being on the ballot. You supported my claim by showing that McCain gets more electoral votes when only Hillary is on the ballot than was being suggested when both are on the ballot.

As you and I have discussed before, when a strong candidate on the same side runs it splits the vote, as you noted during Clinton's run in 1992. Your post supports my claim.

As to the other argument you're trying to make with your selective evidence. it doesn't matter. Hillary lost. Deal with it. You disappear from the thread for weeks at a time and wait to return when you FINALLY get some poll results that support your premise. A rational argument incorporates ALL evidence, not the selective evidence you offer.

Um, what does that have to do with the premise I called dumb. I was talking about both candidates being on the ballot. You supported my claim by showing that McCain gets more electoral votes when only Hillary is on the ballot than was being suggested when both are on the ballot.

As you and I have discussed before, when a strong candidate on the same side runs it splits the vote, as you noted during Clinton's run in 1992. Your post supports my claim.

As to the other argument you're trying to make with your selective evidence. it doesn't matter. Hillary lost. Deal with it. You disappear from the thread for weeks at a time and wait to return when you FINALLY get some poll results that support your premise. A rational argument incorporates ALL evidence, not the selective evidence you offer.
Oh....I have dealt with the strong possibility that Clinton has lost out to the inferior candidate, but what strikes me is the fact that you hardcore Obama supporters think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

These polls keep coming back to the points I raised earlier, you know....the red state theory, which you all want to disregard because they don't add up to your guy winning in November.

And in regards to the first part, it is possible for Democrats to split votes and win States....try 1968.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/1968_Electoral_Map.png/800px-1968_Electoral_Map.png

*sigh*


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



Ill leave you all with this. Good night.

You disappear from the thread for weeks at a time
"Weeks at a time"? Utter BS.

and wait to return when you FINALLY get some poll results that support your premise.
Yet you don't want to examine any evidence that is contrary to your goals. IF anything, the recent evidence should give you pause to reflect on where you are going with all this anti Hillary shit.

A rational argument incorporates ALL evidence, not the selective evidence you offer.
And of course, only Jocabia has "rational arguments". And every time I do return, I can expect your I am better than you crap.

"Weeks at a time"? Utter BS.


Yet you don't want to examine any evidence that is contrary to your goals. IF anything, the recent evidence should give you pause to reflect on where you are going with all this anti Hillary shit.

I'm not anti-Hillary because she can't win. She simply didn't win. I do have an issue with her now because she is painting it like it's being stolen from her.

As far as ignoring your evidence. I'm not. It actually supports the claim I made earlier. However, the bulk of evidence does suggest that Obama is better poised to do well in the general. I'd love to discuss it if you'll actually stick around and address the arguments instead of cutting and pasting the occasional study and disappearing when the time comes to support it.

And of course, only Jocabia has "rational arguments". And every time I do return, I can expect your I am better than you crap.

I'm only asking that you incorporate all of the evidence. You don't talk about any of the polls that go against Hillary. You generally ignore all of the discussion in the thread. You give you little one shots and jet out. When people try to get you to speak to the actual stuff in the thread, you disappear.

But, hey, I'm willing to start fresh.

What do you think of the current state of affairs where Obama has nearly enough supers to win?

What do you think about the fact that MI suggested a solution and Obama supported and Hillary didn't?

What do you think about her win in WV?

What do you think will happen in KY, in OR, etc.?

Entirely possible i.e. not so dumb?

I suppose you think this is "just dumb" too?

Electoral Votes: Clinton 279 McCain 242 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May18.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI


Electoral Votes: Obama 237 McCain 290 Ties 11

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May18.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI

Wisconsin will stay Blue in the General...there is very little enthusiasm for McCain or his policies, a lot of Bush resentment, and the governorship and congressional delegations are solidly Democratic, and there is quite likely to be another Representative seat or two that swing to the Dems come November.

The two largest urban areas will go heavily for Obama...the rest of the state doesn't much matter at that point.

Makes me wonder who these pollsters are even talking to.

Oh....I have dealt with the strong possibility that Clinton has lost out to the inferior candidate, but what strikes me is the fact that you hardcore Obama supporters think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Well, since Clinton struggles with inferior candidates I'm glad she's not competing against McCain. It's not her fault. She just wasn't ready for Obama to stop her date with destiny. Honestly, she figured it out. She had a stong campaign by the end. If she's been 'ready from day 1', she'd have won.

It's pretty common knowledge that her campaign was poorly run. What's that say about her ability to run a country, I wonder?

These polls keep coming back to the points I raised earlier, you know....the red state theory, which you all want to disregard because they don't add up to your guy winning in November.

You mean the polls you select. There have been many, many polls that counter your theory. Unfortunately, when they come up, you're not around to discuss them.

As far as Obama winning in November. While the democratic electorate is still divided, Obama is still running fairly strong against McCain. I wonder what will happen when they reunite. (We both know. Let's not pretend like the heavily divided electorate won't come back together when she joins with him to unite the party.)

And in regards to the first part, it is possible for Democrats to split votes and win States....try 1968.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/1968_Electoral_Map.png/800px-1968_Electoral_Map.png

Sure, but what he quoted had McCain not getting enough electoral votes. That didn't happen in 1968. There is no support for such an outcome. It's patently silly.

Wisconsin will stay Blue in the General...there is very little enthusiasm for McCain or his policies, a lot of Bush resentment, and the governorship and congressional delegations are solidly Democratic, and there is quite likely to be another Representative seat or two that swing to the Dems come November.

The two largest urban areas will go heavily for Obama...the rest of the state doesn't much matter at that point.

Makes me wonder who these pollsters are even talking to.

The bulk of the polls have Obama winning Wisconsin. Like I said, selective evidence.

The bulk of the polls have Obama winning Wisconsin. Like I said, selective evidence.

Meh, it's just one of my buttons...I notice many people talk about Wisconsin like it's a typical "Red State", but anyone who looks at the electoral history of the state knows that that's a load of BS. Wisconsin at the national level has been consistently in the Democrat column for two decades...that's not something that's going to change this time around, especially given the current WH administration.

Now state/local politics are another matter...but nobody else cares about that. :p

Oh....I have dealt with the strong possibility that Clinton has lost out to the inferior candidate, but what strikes me is the fact that you hardcore Obama supporters think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

These polls keep coming back to the points I raised earlier, you know....the red state theory, which you all want to disregard because they don't add up to your guy winning in November.

And in regards to the first part, it is possible for Democrats to split votes and win States....try 1968.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/1968_Electoral_Map.png/800px-1968_Electoral_Map.png

Ooookkkk....there is a big difference between 1968 and 2008. We have the tools to actually look at the candidates themselves in more platforms than we could back then.

"Weeks at a time"? Utter BS.


Yet you don't want to examine any evidence that is contrary to your goals. IF anything, the recent evidence should give you pause to reflect on where you are going with all this anti Hillary shit.


And of course, only Jocabia has "rational arguments". And every time I do return, I can expect your I am better than you crap.

This from RCP:

Obama vs McCain: Obama up by 3.8%
Clinton vs McCain: Clinton up by 1.8%

Wisconsin will stay Blue in the General...there is very little enthusiasm for McCain or his policies, a lot of Bush resentment, and the governorship and congressional delegations are solidly Democratic, and there is quite likely to be another Representative seat or two that swing to the Dems come November.

The two largest urban areas will go heavily for Obama...the rest of the state doesn't much matter at that point.

Makes me wonder who these pollsters are even talking to.

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

Obama is carrying the state and Clinton isn't. :D

Oh....I have dealt with the strong possibility that Clinton has lost out to the inferior candidate

Heh.

The inferior candidate, huh? Cute. Really.

It's really ironic that you try to paint Obama as the inferior candidate in relation to, of all people, Clinton. It's further irony that you, who usually would work so well with logic, are, in this thread, resorting to handpicked evidence and soundbites such at this.

But it's not funny at all!

***Talk in riddles, great one, and force your voice to be heard. Show the opponent's folly in seven sentences. Riddler, Seventh Flush, combine!***

***7th Riddle***

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why did she need to resort to the lowest kind of attack campaigning against a candidate of her own party to even have a shot at winning some states?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why is it that she wouldn't win some states without the dubious help of Rush "I Want Riots" Limbaugh?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why does she have to use underhanded tactics such as claiming the pledged delegates "aren't" to try and force her way?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why is it that she unifies the Republicans and Independents against her but not anyone FOR her?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why does she have to make subtly racist claims to try and jam her point, whatever, if any, it is, through?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, how come they have just about everything in common, with the exception of Hillary claiming her health care would be "nicer", being more warlike, having less appeal, wanting gays and gamers to have less freedom, having a vagina, and being white?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, to end the move, why does she fare worse against McCain than Obama, even after weeks of mudslinging against him from herself, McCain, and other parties?

Can you answer these seven?

Can you answer even one?

...your hand, sir?

Entirely possible i.e. not so dumb?

what the fuck are you even talking about? how is m's scenario even remotely possible except on the purely theoretical level? i mean, the closest we've gotten historically would probably be tr's bull moose run in 1912. and like always happens in first-past-the-post races, when one of the two electoral coalitions fractures and runs two candidates, the other party wins.

on a purely facts on the ground level, there simply aren't enough democrats in california for clinton to win in a three-way race. even if she pulls in 85% of the people who would vote for the democrat in a two-way race (reducing obama to perot levels; not fucking likely), that would give the state to mccain. the same holds true for essentially every state in m's map.

"You can declare yourself anything, but if you don't have the votes, it doesn't matter," Clinton said Monday in a satellite interview with an Oregon television station before a campaign appearance in Kentucky.

The former first lady trails Obama in the delegate count by such a margin that it is mathematically unlikely for her to overtake him in the remaining primaries, which end June 3 with Montana and South Dakota.

Exactly Senator, thank you for saying you don't have the votes. Obama will have 2025 by the end of the season, needing only about 10-20% of the uncommitted supers.

Is this lady serious, and does she know how her own words fit her?

what the fuck are you even talking about? how is m's scenario even remotely possible except on the purely theoretical level? i mean, the closest we've gotten historically would probably be tr's bull moose run in 1912. and like always happens in first-past-the-post races, when one of the two electoral coalitions fractures and runs two candidates, the other party wins.

on a purely facts on the ground level, there simply aren't enough democrats in california for clinton to win in a three-way race. even if she pulls in 85% of the people who would vote for the democrat in a two-way race (reducing obama to perot levels; not fucking likely), that would give the state to mccain. the same holds true for essentially every state in m's map.

Well, we'd still have Massachusetts... my state might as well buy blue pixels in bulk because we them every election year.

Oh, and I just checked out Clintons website where she claims to be ahead in the popular vote. Wish it had a comments section...

Oh, and I just checked out Clintons website where she claims to be ahead in the popular vote. Wish it had a comments section...

Think the delusional hag would like people to remind her of, y'know, reality?

I think the fat lady has sung. Intrade (http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/) is calling the election for Obama. Because they've started to treat politicians like the commodity they are, we can be sure that the market will recognize the winners and throw out the losers.

Obama is at 92.8 and Clinton is at 6.2 for the nomination.

McCain may as well hang it up, he's only trading at 38.9


Seriously, has anyone ever looked at the success records for these political markets? Since the University of Iowa started one of these, the electronic market has outperformed the pollsters about 3/4s of the time...
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/

Kinda cool...

Oh, and I just checked out Clintons website where she claims to be ahead in the popular vote. Wish it had a comments section...

have you checked out the clintonia region of leftblogistan recently? utterly deranged.

the front page of talkleft is having a freakout about the expected obama declaration of victory on tuesday after getting the majority of pledged delegates. because it means he isn't counting michigan and florida!!!!

nobody seems to have noticed that he'll almost certainly have the majority even including the michigan and florida dels - especially if we count edwards dels for him. math is hard.

oh wow, check this out:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/19/obama_adopted_into_crow_nation.html
CROW AGENCY, Mont. -- Sen. Barack Obama became the first American presidential candidate to visit the reservation of the Crow Nation, and in doing so was adopted into the nation under the Crow name "One Who Helps People Throughout the Land."

Drums pounded and the crowd cheered as Obama was escorted to the podium by his "new parents," Hartford and Mary Black Eagle, in the manner of a groom being walked down the aisle. Obama beamed. His adoptive parents gave Obama hugs as he stepped onto a riser to speak.

"I want to thank my new parents," he said. "The nicest parents you could ever want to know. I like my new name. Barack Black Eagle. That is a good name!"

oh wow, check this out:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/19/obama_adopted_into_crow_nation.html

Wow, that's really cool. I totally respect him for that. I mean, he didn't need to pay them much attention, but he did, because it's right.

Her logic is that she is in the lead if you count these two states, but not these others that i don't like. Maybe CH does write her speeches with their penchant for selective data collection.

Hillary was talking up Robert Byrd when she won in WV. Now he's endorsed Obama. Any more subtle hints needed Hillary?

Well, we'd still have Massachusetts... my state might as well buy blue pixels in bulk because we them every election year.

Oh, and I just checked out Clintons website where she claims to be ahead in the popular vote. Wish it had a comments section...

THis has been all over CNN Political Ticker

THis has been all over CNN Political Ticker

Yeah, takes some very interesting "math" to get her result. Big lead in the state of Denial indeed.

Wow, that's really cool. I totally respect him for that. I mean, he didn't need to pay them much attention, but he did, because it's right.

apparently there hasn't been a presidential campaign stop on a rez since bobby kennedy made an appearance in pine ridge in 1968. and bill clinton also went to pine ridge in 1999, which made him the first sitting president to visit a reservation since fucking fdr.

apparently there hasn't been a presidential campaign stop on a rez since bobby kennedy made an appearance in pine ridge in 1968. and bill clinton also went to pine ridge in 1999, which made him the first sitting president to visit a reservation since fucking fdr.

Yeah, isn't it amazing how little care most candidates have for them? It's horrible.

Updated maps:

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May20.html): Clinton 284 McCain 237 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May20.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL NM OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May20.html): Obama 242 McCain 285 Ties 11

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May20.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA NM
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI

Updated maps:

not that it matters, since clinton won't be the nominee;

there is still no reasonable justification for giving the 'barely' states to anyone. those states are fully in play at this very early date. shit, even the demographics of mississippi are such that an unlikely but feasible shift in voting demographics (increase black turnout, and peel off just a few percent more white voters than kerry managed) could give obama the state - and we know that obama is running a major voter registration drive precisely to do this sort of thing, and he has proven results already.

but even holding the modelling demographics as good enough, there really isn't a good reason to put anything within 5% into anyone's column (as should be obvious by the fact that these maps keep changing already). so if we subtract out the barelys and the closest weaks we get:

C - 254
M - 179
up for grabs - 103

O - 226
M - 167
up for grabs - 145

once again, the map says clinton is mostly stuck playing the same old losing defensive game while obama gets to use his huge financial advantage to play offense and change the fucking maps.


(and, of course, significantly more clinton supporters are lying about who they will vote for when asked about obama vs mccain, and obama will ultimately pick up a few more points once clinton openly acknowledges the painfully obvious. which changes the maps once again.)

Snip.

How nice of you to drop by. It's a pity you couldn't find it in your heart to answer my points. Shall I later repost them for your benefit?

Updated maps:

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May20.html): Clinton 284 McCain 237 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May20.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL NM OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May20.html): Obama 242 McCain 285 Ties 11

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May20.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA NM
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI

The interesting thing about these numbers is that they do not include the "ties." They also support the idea that polling on 5/20 will equal votes in November. Another thing to note is that they give a pickup for the Republicans in a state that is "barely Dem" but do the opposite in the case where a state is barely Rep. Put WI, MI, VA, and NC in pay and the numbers are totally different. Ohio could also be flipped. A lot of the numbers they are crediting McCain with are within the margin of error so there is no statistical lead.

Updated maps:

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May20.html): Clinton 284 McCain 237 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May20.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL NM OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May20.html): Obama 242 McCain 285 Ties 11

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May20.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA NM
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI
First of all, didn't a whole separate thread for this nonsense get created?

Second...Hey, that's great! Clinton has a marginal lead in the current polls...thats solid, right? I mean, it's not like she squandered a 20 point lead in the polls going into the primary and got out campaigned by a relatively unknown candidate or anything. Surely she can maintain a statistically insignificant lead now, right?

Updated maps:

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May20.html): Clinton 284 McCain 237 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May20.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL NM OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May20.html): Obama 242 McCain 285 Ties 11

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May20.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA NM
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI

I wonder at what point this becomes cut-and-paste spam. You are utterly unwilling to engage in debate and just show up posting selected "evidence" you cut and pasted from somewhere else without commentary.

First of all, didn't a whole separate thread for this nonsense get created?

Second...Hey, that's great! Clinton has a marginal lead in the current polls...thats solid, right? I mean, it's not like she squandered a 20 point lead in the polls going into the primary and got out campaigned by a relatively unknown candidate or anything. Surely she can maintain a statistically insignificant lead now, right?

A marginal lead in the polls...but positive numbers in swing states that make or break an election. That's no small thing to consider. Except, that can't be taken into consideration on its own because of all of the Obama people who will idiotically scream, "RACISM!" if she gets the nomination. Hell, even if she doesn't (and she probably won't) get the nomination, they'll still scream "RACISM!" no matter what. It's the easiest word to use to silence all logical thought and debate.

A marginal lead in the polls...but positive numbers in swing states that make or break an election. That's no small thing to consider. Except, that can't be taken into consideration on its own because of all of the Obama people who will idiotically scream, "RACISM!" if she gets the nomination. Hell, even if she doesn't (and she probably won't) get the nomination, they'll still scream "RACISM!" no matter what. It's the easiest word to use to silence all logical thought and debate.
Well, you did a bang up job of using it here for that, now didn't you?

A marginal lead in the polls...but positive numbers in swing states that make or break an election. That's no small thing to consider. Except, that can't be taken into consideration on its own because of all of the Obama people who will idiotically scream, "RACISM!" if she gets the nomination. Hell, even if she doesn't (and she probably won't) get the nomination, they'll still scream "RACISM!" no matter what. It's the easiest word to use to silence all logical thought and debate.

How ironic. You avoid debate by accusing the "Obama people" (since they're all apparently of a hive mind) of shouting "racism". Do you know what a gross generalization is? It's a fallacy. You just used it.

Regardless, people won't scream racism if Obama has the nomination stolen from him. What people will scream about is how the party insiders have proven to support exactly the thing everyone is running against in this election. People will scream that the inside-the-beltway crap is still the order of the day.

Or we could just toss fallacies at each other.

"Except, that can't be taken into consideration on its own because of all of the Clinton people who will idiotically scream, "SEXISM!" if he gets the nomination. Hell, even if he doesn't (and he already has) get the nomination, they'll still scream "SEXISM!" no matter what. It's the easiest word to use to silence all logical thought and debate."

I wonder at what point this becomes cut-and-paste spam. You are utterly unwilling to engage in debate and just show up posting selected "evidence" you cut and pasted from somewhere else without commentary.
Certainly not spam. I posted this for future historical reference that will back the claims that I have been making all along.

Obama is not going to cut deep into red states and will be hard pressed to hang on to some of the significant blue states.

The only thing that can save Obama's Presidential bid is to have Hillary on his ticket, but we all know that will not happen.

The interesting thing about these numbers is that they do not include the "ties." They also support the idea that polling on 5/20 will equal votes in November. Another thing to note is that they give a pickup for the Republicans in a state that is "barely Dem" but do the opposite in the case where a state is barely Rep. Put WI, MI, VA, and NC in pay and the numbers are totally different. Ohio could also be flipped. A lot of the numbers they are crediting McCain with are within the margin of error so there is no statistical lead.

Interesting site isn't it. Any info on the owners? I'm interested who it's connected with.

A marginal lead in the polls...but positive numbers in swing states that make or break an election. That's no small thing to consider. Except, that can't be taken into consideration on its own because of all of the Obama people who will idiotically scream, "RACISM!" if she gets the nomination. Hell, even if she doesn't (and she probably won't) get the nomination, they'll still scream "RACISM!" no matter what. It's the easiest word to use to silence all logical thought and debate.

Miru ga ii...

1- The only one who's using this word here is, guess who, you.

2- If you think Hillary getting the nomination through ignoring the popular vote will get Democrats to vote for HER, I've got a bridge to sell you.

3- Even ASSUMING this state of affairs depicted by CH's images is real, Obama has an actual structure and a real majority by his side.

Certainly not spam. I posted this for future historical reference that will back the claims that I have been making all along.

Obama is not going to cut deep into red states and will be hard pressed to hang on to some of the significant blue states.

The only thing that can save Obama's Presidential bid is to have Hillary on his ticket, but we all know that will not happen.

Oh, you're back! Could you kindly, pretty please, answer my post?

This one:

Heh.

The inferior candidate, huh? Cute. Really.

It's really ironic that you try to paint Obama as the inferior candidate in relation to, of all people, Clinton. It's further irony that you, who usually would work so well with logic, are, in this thread, resorting to handpicked evidence and soundbites such at this.

But it's not funny at all!

***Talk in riddles, great one, and force your voice to be heard. Show the opponent's folly in seven sentences. Riddler, Seventh Flush, combine!***

***7th Riddle***

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why did she need to resort to the lowest kind of attack campaigning against a candidate of her own party to even have a shot at winning some states?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why is it that she wouldn't win some states without the dubious help of Rush "I Want Riots" Limbaugh?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why does she have to use underhanded tactics such as claiming the pledged delegates "aren't" to try and force her way?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why is it that she unifies the Republicans and Independents against her but not anyone FOR her?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why does she have to make subtly racist claims to try and jam her point, whatever, if any, it is, through?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, how come they have just about everything in common, with the exception of Hillary claiming her health care would be "nicer", being more warlike, having less appeal, wanting gays and gamers to have less freedom, having a vagina, and being white?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, to end the move, why does she fare worse against McCain than Obama, even after weeks of mudslinging against him from herself, McCain, and other parties?

Can you answer these seven?

Can you answer even one?

...your hand, sir?

First of all, didn't a whole separate thread for this nonsense get created?

Second...Hey, that's great! Clinton has a marginal lead in the current polls...thats solid, right? I mean, it's not like she squandered a 20 point lead in the polls going into the primary and got out campaigned by a relatively unknown candidate or anything. Surely she can maintain a statistically insignificant lead now, right?

wow, I didn't even sense any sarcasm in what you wrote. I would know too, being a sarcastic a## myself.

Interesting site isn't it. Any info on the owners? I'm interested who it's connected with.
They don't seem to be particularly "connected" to anyone. It's just a bunch of skilled nerds who like this stuff. They did a good job last election, too.

Certainly not spam. I posted this for future historical reference that will back the claims that I have been making all along.

a question for you.

if current polls are strong evidence of november outcomes, then what the fuck do you make of the then-current polls of april 3rd (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr03.html)?

Electoral Votes:
Clinton 203 McCain 304 Ties 31
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/Apr03.png

They don't seem to be particularly "connected" to anyone. It's just a bunch of skilled nerds who like this stuff. They did a good job last election, too.

Just looks like they're cherry picking data to me, showing a pro-Clinton bias. The lack of sources on their poll numbers irks me. Makes me google it does.


Obama VS. McCain:
source (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)
RCP Average____05/07 - 05/19___--____47.2 43.4__Obama +3.8
Gallup Tracking____05/15 - 05/19___ 4464 RV____47 44__Obama +3.0
Rasmussen Tracking____05/16 - 05/19___1600 LV____43 46__McCain +3.0
Quinnipiac____05/08 - 05/12___1475 RV 47__40 Obama +7.0
ABC News/Wash Post____05/08 - 05/11___1122 A____51 44__Obama +7.0
POS/GQR____05/07 - 05/08___800 LV____48 43__Obama +5.0

Interesting how they're way off eh? Also note the only poll that shows him losing to McCain is the same company who's polls Canuck's source relies most on.

A marginal lead in the polls...but positive numbers in swing states that make or break an election. That's no small thing to consider. Except, that can't be taken into consideration on its own because of all of the Obama people who will idiotically scream, "RACISM!" if she gets the nomination. Hell, even if she doesn't (and she probably won't) get the nomination, they'll still scream "RACISM!" no matter what. It's the easiest word to use to silence all logical thought and debate.

Oh, you mean the way her campaign and Geraldine Ferraro yelled about sexism and Obama being sexist towards Hillary? Ah, but you didn't even consider that did you? Her marginal lead in the polls are exactly that...statistically insignificant. We've explained this to CH many time, but maybe you're just his puppet. Further, numbers from May do not equal numbers in November. Right now there is a split Democratic ticket which leads to lower numbers for both candidates. Once Obama is the official nominee things will change. The comments that others have made that she squandered a 20 point lead and was considered "inevitable" is a pungent odor in Hillary's nose.

Your comments only hold weight if you are playing a plus 1 game. As can be seen in the three special elections won by Democrats in hugely read areas, this is not 2000 or 2004. 8 years of GWB have changed the landscape of our country. They have also changed the view of the Republican party for the worst. It may take years to reverse this trend, much like it was in the opposite direction before the "Southern Strategy" was thought up by Nixon.

Certainly not spam. I posted this for future historical reference that will back the claims that I have been making all along.

Because you've been so spot on so far. "Hillary will have it sewn up after Super Tuesday" much?

Obama is not going to cut deep into red states and will be hard pressed to hang on to some of the significant blue states.

In your opinion. However, the evidence does not support your theory. What significant blue states is he "hard pressed" to hold?

The only thing that can save Obama's Presidential bid is to have Hillary on his ticket, but we all know that will not happen.

In other words... Hillary cannot beat Obama so the only way for him to win is to pick the person losing?

Interesting site isn't it. Any info on the owners? I'm interested who it's connected with.

Indeed. I'd also like to see how their methodology on how they decide states that are toss-ups or a statistically tied. They make assumptions in one direction that they do not in another. I wonder why it is so.

Just looks like they're cherry picking data to me, showing a pro-Clinton bias. The lack of sources on their poll numbers irks me. Makes me google it does.

um, it totally cites all of its sources, and each number is just the most recent poll taken there.

Oh, you mean the way her campaign and Geraldine Ferraro yelled about sexism and Obama being sexist towards Hillary? Ah, but you didn't even consider that did you?

On that note:


For Some Clinton Supporters, Sexism Is the Only Explanation
Many Women's Hopes of Seeing First Female President Are Tied to Clinton Going the Distance
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
May 20, 2008
source: (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4889014&page=1)

As Sen. Hillary Clinton has raced toward the end of what appears to be a losing bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has voiced what her most fervent supports have been saying -- her campaign has been dissed and damaged by people "who are nothing but misogynists."

In unusually blunt comments, Clinton told the Washington Post that sexism has played a larger role in the campaign than racism and that it has cost her and her supporters.

"It's been deeply offensive to millions of women. I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways," Clinton said. "But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press."

Clinton, the first woman to make a serious bid for a major party's presidential nomination, said she did not think that racism was a factor in her bruising battle with Sen. Barack Obama.

Instead, she said, "The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted."

She added, "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

Clinton is expected to easily win the Kentucky Democratic primary today, but lose to Obama in Oregon. A split would give Obama a majority of delegates, but Clinton is showing no inclination to quit the race.

Her campaign aides told ABC News that she intends to keep campaigning through the final primary on June 3. Clinton also took a shot at Obama for acting as if he has already won and not even campaigning in Kentucky.

"You know, the last thing we need is somebody who gives up and quits as our next president," she told supporters Monday.

Many women are as determined as Clinton that the campaign continue. "NOT SO FAST" reads the headline in a full-page ad in The New York Times paid for by the WomenCount PAC.

um, it totally cites all of its sources, and each number is just the most recent poll taken there.

It tells me who ran the poll yes, but provides no link to the data. No link means I have to dig it up myself. I also note that they use Ramussen data when Gallup poll was on the same day and ran a day longer. The difference being a six point spread (national average). One wonders why they opted to use one over the other.

Check this out: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Notice anything about the Rasmussen data? It shows Clinton winning in two separate polls, and Obama losing. Something Gallup refutes, Gallup shows them both beating McCain.

It tells me who ran the poll yes, but provides no link to the data. No link means I have to dig it up myself. I also note that they use Ramussen data when Gallup poll was on the same day and ran a day longer. The difference being a six point spread (national average). One wonders why they opted to use one over the other.

I think that's the point he is attempting to make. Who runs it, and why do they assume one thing when they could easily assume the other?

On that note:

To quote Toshiro Hitsugaya, from Bleach:

"Oh, it began... The bickering of the stupid oldsters and their baseless arguments."

To quote Toshiro Hitsugaya, from Bleach:

"Oh, it began... The bickering of the stupid oldsters and their baseless arguments."

I find it hard to take him seriously. Same seiyū as Ed Elric.

I find it hard to take him seriously. Same seiyū as Ed Elric.

I'm actually quoting (and translating) the manga...

Still, it applies. ;)

A marginal lead in the polls...but positive numbers in swing states that make or break an election. That's no small thing to consider. Except, that can't be taken into consideration on its own because of all of the Obama people who will idiotically scream, "RACISM!" if she gets the nomination. Hell, even if she doesn't (and she probably won't) get the nomination, they'll still scream "RACISM!" no matter what. It's the easiest word to use to silence all logical thought and debate.

Miru ga ii...

1- The only one who's using this word here is, guess who, you.
Hmmmm.....how about you?

If Hillary is superior to Obama, as you so mightily claim, why does she have to make subtly racist claims to try and jam her point, whatever, if any, it is, through?
Guess you forgot?

I'm actually quoting (and translating) the manga...

Still, it applies. ;)

What I wonder is how she can seriously discount the effects of racism against Obama. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168561&title=indecision-2008-west-virginia

Now I'm sure they picked those three rednecks for the sake of an obvious joke, but still there's a lot of people with that attitude. I know several myself.

Hmmmm.....how about you?


Guess you forgot?

"Hard working, WHITE people..."

I didn't. Did you?

For that matter, now that you showed you're here and aware of that post, will you answer it? Can you build a defense?

What I wonder is how she can seriously discount the effects of racism against Obama. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168561&title=indecision-2008-west-virginia

Now I'm sure they picked those three rednecks for the sake of an obvious joke, but still there's a lot of people with that attitude. I know several myself.

20% of Clinton voters, according to exit polls, were willing to admit that they didn't vote for Obama because he's black.

And those were just the ones willing to admit it to a pollster. Given that racism is (rightly) stigmatized, I'd bet the true number is much higher.

"Hard working, WHITE people..."

I didn't. Did you?

For that matter, now that you showed you're here and aware of that post, will you answer it? Can you build a defense?

Well you know he read at least part of it.

Well you know he read at least part of it.

He did. Now let's see if he can ANSWER even PART, let alone it all.

Plus, you've got to admit, that had STYLE. ;)

Is it just me or is the Democrat nomination looking more and more like the general presidential election of 2000?

Certainly not spam. I posted this for future historical reference that will back the claims that I have been making all along.

Except you gave no context. If you'd like to enter the debate, please do. Make claims. Defend them. Drop in things you don't comment on is useless to everyone ESPECIALLY you.


Obama is not going to cut deep into red states and will be hard pressed to hang on to some of the significant blue states.

Except it doesn't support that. See, with evidence there is this thing called statistical relevance. A - it requires that you not ignore all the evidence against you. B - it requires more information than you're willing to analyze.

If all the polling or most of the polling supported your premise, it might be of concern. Unfortunately for your argument, you can only find the occasional poll to support your claim. Of course, that these polls occur at a time when no one is running against Hillary doesn't seem to matter to you. Obama has focused on McCain for about 6 weeks. Hillary was focused on Obama until a week ago. McCain is only focused on Obama. And, in fact, lately Republicans have taken to praising Hillary in order to give her argument more credibility. Is it any suprise she's faring a little better?

The only thing that can save Obama's Presidential bid is to have Hillary on his ticket, but we all know that will not happen.

Oh, dear God. You do realize they combine negatives as well as positives, yes? There is a large group of people who would do ANYTHING to keep her out of the white house. Some of them would have been voting for Obama. So he loses those. There is a portion of people who voted for her that view her loss as sexist. Letting her play second fiddle isn't going to help that. There is a portion of people that won't allow Obama to be President because he's black. She won't help that.

She undermines Obama's message of change since he's been accusing her of being an inside-the-beltway person. Also, it would give credibility to all of the arguments each made against the other, arguments that would be the regular fodder of the Republican attack machine.

So now, you have a weakened Obama due to her being on the ticket and her weakened by Obama being on the ticket. Given their policies are so similar, it's unlikely her being on the ticket will aid him in any way.

Is it just me or is the Democrat nomination looking more and more like the general presidential election of 2000?

How so?

Is it just me or is the Democrat nomination looking more and more like the general presidential election of 2000?

It's just you. In this case, the same candidate is winning both by the rules of the game and by popular vote. The only way that claim has ever been contested is by discounting the vote in certain states and giving no votes to the Obama from Michigan.

How so?
Because one candidate is a black man and the other is a white woman, just like in the 2000 presidential election =P

In other words... Hillary cannot beat Obama so the only way for him to win is to pick the person losing?
Absolutely. It really isn't that hard to figure out. However, the Hillary haters will go out of their way to unwittingly sabotage Obama's only real hope for success.

Absolutely. It really isn't that hard to figure out. However, the Hillary haters will go out of their way to unwittingly sabotage Obama's only real hope for success.

Are you planning to reply to any substantial posts or just put out these little two sentence gems replying showing that you don't really understand what you're talking about?

Oh, you mean the way her campaign and Geraldine Ferraro yelled about sexism and Obama being sexist towards Hillary?
Yeah. Pretty much. Except invoking racism is a much stronger tool than invoking sexism. Poll after poll showing that sex matters more to people when making a decision about who to vote for clearly demonstates this, as does the fact that statements made by men in NH to "iron my sheets" barely was mentioned in the media, while if those had been racial statements, there would be riots.

Ah, but you didn't even consider that did you?
I did, but that's not the subject I'm addressing.
Her marginal lead in the polls are exactly that...statistically insignificant.
True. Nevertheless, she won the primaries in Ohio and Florida, two states that many election experts agree are fundamental to winning the presidency.

We've explained this to CH many time, but maybe you're just his puppet.
Because if someone sides with someone else, he must be the other's puppet. I guess that makes John Edwards Barack Obama's puppet?
Further, numbers from May do not equal numbers in November.
I agree, but I question the logic in taking on a candidate who has a demographi disadvantage in key swing states -- that he is weak among the white elderly, a huge voting bloc in Florida, and the white working class, a huge bloc in Ohio -- while another exists who already performs well among these demographics.

Right now there is a split Democratic ticket which leads to lower numbers for both candidates. Once Obama is the official nominee things will change. The comments that others have made that she squandered a 20 point lead and was considered "inevitable" is a pungent odor in Hillary's nose.
True, and true. Nevertheless, my above point about demographics still stands.

Your comments only hold weight if you are playing a plus 1 game. As can be seen in the three special elections won by Democrats in hugely read areas, this is not 2000 or 2004. 8 years of GWB have changed the landscape of our country. They have also changed the view of the Republican party for the worst. It may take years to reverse this trend, much like it was in the opposite direction before the "Southern Strategy" was thought up by Nixon.
You're quite right that times have changed. My area is (was) considered a Republican stronghold, but suddenly my Congressmen, who has been elected time after time after time, is suddenly sending mailings targeted specifically at women in his district in May of the election year. That was all I needed to know that the Republicans are shaking in their shoes.

My observations aside, it would be unwise to rely soley on sweeping electoral change to win an election rather than going by standards that are already established. Ever hear the phrase, "As goes Ohio, so does the nation?" Ohio has gone to the winner of every presidential election since 1948, albeit 1960. It would defy all knowledge about presidential politics that has been accrued over the years to discount the importance of Ohio, or Florida for that matter, which has been so instrumental in recent elections.

Are you planning to reply to any substantial posts

More specifically, are you planning on replying to MINE, CH? I made it just for you, with so much love...

Yeah. Pretty much. Except invoking racism is a much stronger tool than invoking sexism. Poll after poll showing that sex matters more to people when making a decision about who to vote for clearly demonstates this, as does the fact that statements made by men in NH to "iron my sheets" barely was mentioned in the media, while if those had been racial statements, there would be riots.

Recently, a shirt was made with a monkey over the message: "Obama '08".

There was not much outcry.

Please stop throwing baseless claims with me around. Give me an argument in which I can actually break a sweat and make an effort.

Recently, a shirt was made with a monkey over the message: "Obama '08".

There was not much outcry.

Please stop throwing baseless claims with me around. Give me an argument in which I can actually break a sweat and make an effort.

I would think there wasn't much outcry on that because honestly we've been doing it with Bush for 6 years now, and it'd be a smidge hypocritical to cry foul.

More specifically, are you planning on replying to MINE, CH? I made it just for you, with so much love...
However, it is actually filled with so much rhetoric and hate, I find myself uninspired to hash it out for you.

I would think there wasn't much outcry on that because honestly we've been doing it with Bush for 6 years now, and it'd be a smidge hypocritical to cry foul.

Bush is called a monkey because he's stupid and acts like an unevolved simian while in power.

Obama was called a monkey because he's black.

I'm just showing that the "clean my pool" analogy would be made.

Not that I'd ever tell Obama to clean mine.

And I'd never tell Bush to clean my pool either: I'd tell him to die a horrible, slow and painful death.

However, it is actually filled with so much rhetoric and hate, I find myself uninspired to hash it out for you.

How about you take a hike then. 'Cause if you ain't gonna play with the big kids you should probably get off the field.

However, it is actually filled with so much rhetoric and hate, I find myself uninspired to hash it out for you.

Translation: I am incapable of a rebuttle because my arguements dont rely on facts.

However, it is actually filled with so much rhetoric and hate, I find myself uninspired to hash it out for you.

Why is it that in this thread, whenever someone makes an assertion that runs counter to Clinton's fans' ones, the Clinton fan in question claims "hatred" and "arrogance" and what-the-heck-ever instead of actually addressing the point?

Ah well. Did it hurt, CH? Tell me where the boo-boo is. Or you'd rather have me just take your word for it that Clinton fares better against McCain, and ignore all evidence? Would that make you more comfortable?

Too bad, cuz it's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

Recently, a shirt was made with a monkey over the message: "Obama '08".

There was not much outcry.

Please stop throwing baseless claims with me around. Give me an argument in which I can actually break a sweat and make an effort.

Well, I wasn't addressing you, but we'll let that slide.

I've heard of the shirt you mentioned, and you're right, there wasn't much outcry. That doesn't change the fact that race, as an issue, causes much more controversy than gender. That's just a fact. Anyone who would deny this has never lived a day in the United States. But that's really not my point.

My point is that racial concerns would most likely sabotage a Clinton nomination. This is because so much of this election has already been about race, and blacks uniformly support Obama -- moreso than white women favor Clinton. Imagine the implications if the white political establishment overruled the will of the voters to give the nomination to a white candidate over the black candidate who won the most votes and delegates. There would be an uproar, and blacks would defect to McCain at alarming rates. I don't see how Hillary would win at all.

That being said, my point was that nominating Clinton based on grounds about demographics and the electoral map shouldn't translate into a racial issue. Nevertheless, it would, and that is why she can't get the nomination. It's a shame, because if it didn't run the risk of losing black voters, the DNC would probably have a better shot at victory with a Clinton nomination.

My observations aside, it would be unwise to rely soley on sweeping electoral change to win an election rather than going by standards that are already established. Ever hear the phrase, "As goes Ohio, so does the nation?" Ohio has gone to the winner of every presidential election since 1948, albeit 1960. It would defy all knowledge about presidential politics that has been accrued over the years to discount the importance of Ohio, or Florida for that matter, which has been so instrumental in recent elections.
True and true. However, the Obama supporters here tend to believe that he will magically transform the electoral map through his message of "change".

I believe that they are in for a rude awakening.

True and true. However, the Obama supporters here tend to believe that he will magically transform the electoral map through his message of "change".

I believe that they are in for a rude awakening.

Meanwhile you believe that Clinton should get to override popular votes for Obama, all the while forgetting about the fact that this would essentially keep just about every African-American and a lot of liberal democrats and most independents home in 11/4.

Good thing YOUR rude awakening won't happen.

True and true. However, the Obama supporters here tend to believe that he will magically transform the electoral map through his message of "change".

I believe that they are in for a rude awakening.

You find Hillary's redefining the electoral map through disenfranchising and selective information more palatable? Bear in mind in the general election Hillary wouldn't be able to cry foul and discount whatever votes don't appeal to her.

Well, I wasn't addressing you, but we'll let that slide.

I've heard of the shirt you mentioned, and you're right, there wasn't much outcry. That doesn't change the fact that race, as an issue, causes much more controversy than gender. That's just a fact. Anyone who would deny this has never lived a day in the United States. But that's really not my point.

My point is that racial concerns would most likely sabotage a Clinton nomination. This is because so much of this election has already been about race, and blacks uniformly support Obama -- moreso than white women favor Clinton. Imagine the implications if the white political establishment overruled the will of the voters to give the nomination to a white candidate over the black candidate who won the most votes and delegates. There would be an uproar, and blacks would defect to McCain at alarming rates. I don't see how Hillary would win at all.

That being said, my point was that nominating Clinton based on grounds about demographics and the electoral map shouldn't translate into a racial issue. Nevertheless, it would, and that is why she can't get the nomination. It's a shame, because if it didn't run the risk of losing black voters, the DNC would probably have a better shot at victory with a Clinton nomination.

Clinton is way too polarizing to win. And Obama has had, for the vast majority of the race, a bigger advantage against McCain than she has had.

Translation: I am incapable of a rebuttle because my arguements dont rely on facts.
And your response is just trolling?

Yeah. Pretty much. Except invoking racism is a much stronger tool than invoking sexism. Poll after poll showing that sex matters more to people when making a decision about who to vote for clearly demonstates this, as does the fact that statements made by men in NH to "iron my sheets" barely was mentioned in the media, while if those had been racial statements, there would be riots.

Riots? You mean there were riots when the Obama-monkey came out? Or when Geraldine Ferraro called the Obama candidacy affirmative action? Those riots? The riots that never happened?


I did, but that's not the subject I'm addressing.

True. Nevertheless, she won the primaries in Ohio and Florida, two states that many election experts agree are fundamental to winning the presidency.

Except she won the primary in Florida without Obama campaigning there. That fact alone favors name-recognition, something she has much more of.


My observations aside, it would be unwise to rely soley on sweeping electoral change to win an election rather than going by standards that are already established. Ever hear the phrase, "As goes Ohio, so does the nation?" Ohio has gone to the winner of every presidential election since 1948, albeit 1960. It would defy all knowledge about presidential politics that has been accrued over the years to discount the importance of Ohio, or Florida for that matter, which has been so instrumental in recent elections.

I doubt he does discount the importance of Ohio or Florida, but the fact she won in Ohio doesn't mean he won't.

And your response is just trolling?

Go ahead and report him. I suspect that at some point even the mods will grow tired with your hit and run tactics where you spend more time attacking posters than supporting or rebutting claims. There are several posters you refuse to actually make arguments to or with, but are happy to reply to with insults.

As I've said before, debate or go away.

True and true. However, the Obama supporters here tend to believe that he will magically transform the electoral map through his message of "change".

I believe that they are in for a rude awakening.

"I believe" is really all you have to go on. Even using only the latest, selective numbers it doesn't hold water. You cannot declare a statistical advantage where there is none. Your little map is one scenerio. Do you deny that it could be wrong and that other things might happen. Obama puts more states in play then the 2004 +1 map. Oh, "I believe."

An important thing to note is that this primary started out as Hillary's race to lose. She has lost it in spectacular fashion, losing a double digit advantage over everyone else and taking second banana to a relative unknown from Illinois. A senator from New York, widely known, former first lady, losing to a junior senator from Illinois. Losing by every metric you can measure.

Why would you think the general would go any different? The Republicans have no shortage of ammunition against the Clintons, they proved that a decade ago. Instead of bowing out gracefully Hillary and her supporters will cry foul, scream about media bias, sexism and anything else they can think of to avoid admitting the cold hard facts.

Clinton is way too polarizing to win. And Obama has had, for the vast majority of the race, a bigger advantage against McCain than she has had.

Maybe in the past, but not anymore. Obama has a statistically insignificant advantage over Clinton when mashed up with McCain, according to the latest polls.

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

Nevertheless, I stand firm that the factor of race in this election has destroyed any chances of a Clinton victory in the general.

20% of Clinton voters, according to exit polls, were willing to admit that they didn't vote for Obama because he's black.

And those were just the ones willing to admit it to a pollster. Given that racism is (rightly) stigmatized, I'd bet the true number is much higher.

QFT and accuracy

Maybe in the past, but not anymore. Obama has a statistically insignificant advantage over Clinton when mashed up with McCain, according to the latest polls.

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

Nevertheless, I stand firm that the factor of race in this election has destroyed any chances of a Clinton victory in the general.

You mean that she didn't play the Muslim ****** card hard enough?

Absolutely. It really isn't that hard to figure out. However, the Hillary haters will go out of their way to unwittingly sabotage Obama's only real hope for success.

Really, what do you base this on except for that little electoral map thing? Please look at the preponderance of the evidence and explain.

Poll after poll showing that sex matters more to people when making a decision about who to vote for

source?

he is weak among...the white working class

no weaker than any democrat anywhere. stronger than clinton is, actually.

you meant that he is weak in appalachia.
well, can't be everything to everyone.

And your response is just trolling?

Sure beats claiming my post was somehow "hateful".

Where was it hateful, CH?

Was it when I pointed out that Hillary was, indeed, being racist, or when I pointed out that she needed to resort to mudslinging to even make a dent in Obama's lead? Or perhaps it was when I pointed out how polarizing she is. Or maybe when I pointed out that she got Limbaugh's help in winning states out of his wish for a riot of blood in the Democratic convention? Could it be that it was when I pointed out that Hillary wanted to dance around the rules of the game to have her way? Or when I pointed out that, in policy, they're just the same, with the exception of Obama being generally much nicer, and the physical differences?

Or maybe it's when I pointed out, for the umpteenth time, that she fares worse against McCain than Obama does.

When was it, CH? Where did you see the hate you claim you saw? Where, in short, is the boo-boo?

That being said, my point was that nominating Clinton based on grounds about demographics and the electoral map shouldn't translate into a racial issue. Nevertheless, it would, and that is why she can't get the nomination. It's a shame, because if it didn't run the risk of losing black voters, the DNC would probably have a better shot at victory with a Clinton nomination.

You make it about race when you start going into racial demographics.

Riots? You mean there were riots when the Obama-monkey came out? Or when Geraldine Ferraro called the Obama candidacy affirmative action? Those riots? The riots that never happened?
Gerradiline Ferraro was forced to resign, amid much press about the incident.

Except she won the primary in Florida without Obama campaigning there. That fact alone favors name-recognition, something she has much more of.
The electorate in Florida is made up largely of elderly white voters, whom Clinton performs very well with. You're going to tell me that a win by 17 percentage points in a state with a candidate's key demographic is soley due to name recognition?

I doubt he does discount the importance of Ohio or Florida, but the fact she won in Ohio doesn't mean he won't.
I doubt he discounts the importance either. Unfortunately, many people seem to be discounting Ohio's importance in winning elections by denying that Clinton's victory there means anything.

I live in Washington. Hillary doesn't think my vote should count. In fact, she thinks that votes in what I can only term a sham election should matter more than my vote. I used to quite like the Clintons, and looked forward to voting for her in the general back before I thought Obama had a real chance. Now I could, at best, hold my nose when casting my ballot, and at worst could not convince myself to vote for her at all.

Yeah. Pretty much. Except invoking racism is a much stronger tool than invoking sexism. Poll after poll showing that sex matters more to people when making a decision about who to vote for clearly demonstates this, as does the fact that statements made by men in NH to "iron my sheets" barely was mentioned in the media, while if those had been racial statements, there would be riots.


I did, but that's not the subject I'm addressing.

True. Nevertheless, she won the primaries in Ohio and Florida, two states that many election experts agree are fundamental to winning the presidency.


Because if someone sides with someone else, he must be the other's puppet. I guess that makes John Edwards Barack Obama's puppet?

I agree, but I question the logic in taking on a candidate who has a demographi disadvantage in key swing states -- that he is weak among the white elderly, a huge voting bloc in Florida, and the white working class, a huge bloc in Ohio -- while another exists who already performs well among these demographics.


True, and true. Nevertheless, my above point about demographics still stands.


You're quite right that times have changed. My area is (was) considered a Republican stronghold, but suddenly my Congressmen, who has been elected time after time after time, is suddenly sending mailings targeted specifically at women in his district in May of the election year. That was all I needed to know that the Republicans are shaking in their shoes.

My observations aside, it would be unwise to rely soley on sweeping electoral change to win an election rather than going by standards that are already established. Ever hear the phrase, "As goes Ohio, so does the nation?" Ohio has gone to the winner of every presidential election since 1948, albeit 1960. It would defy all knowledge about presidential politics that has been accrued over the years to discount the importance of Ohio, or Florida for that matter, which has been so instrumental in recent elections.

I'm going to reply to this in short because I have a meeting to go to. You assumed Obama supporters will yell racism when Hillary's supporters are actually calling "sexism." One is a projection, the other is reality.

I've heard that line, but you gave the exception. Do you think it's possible that things have changed over 8 years. Her "winning" in Florida is a moot point and I'm not willing to discuss it anymore. When you've run something into the ground and dug to the Earth's core there is no sense. There are no absolutes in Presidential politics. If that were the case Hillary would have won way before now. He may be losing in "swing states" that you find important, but he's winning in others. America is not a static nation. We change when evidence changes.

Recently, a shirt was made with a monkey over the message: "Obama '08".

There was not much outcry.

Please stop throwing baseless claims with me around. Give me an argument in which I can actually break a sweat and make an effort.

Oh, and let's not forget the joke at the NRA about assassinating Obama.

Snip.

Vamosa, I have something besides the point to say to you:

You are not CH's puppet.

We're on the opposite sides, but I respect your arguments. And you never made any claims of "hatefulness" about people who disagree with you. I'm even, yes, recanting my remark about not having to make an effort. Well, actually, I'm not, I'm complimenting you on the fact that now I DO have to make an effort.

That said, Obama is one point behind McCain in Florida as it is now; It's not a huge leap to assume that he'll overtake him, and well, when the nomination race is over.

In Ohio, Obama doesn't fare that badly either, and I'm pretty sure they're tired of Bush, to whom Democrats will succeed in tying McCain by August, if not sooner.

That, along with the fact that Obama does put more states in play and has a LOT more cash than McCain, makes me believe he's got more of a chance.

Gerradiline Ferraro was forced to resign, amid much press about the incident.

You didn't say that someone would have to resign. You said there would be riots.

I doubt he discounts the importance either. Unfortunately, many people seem to be discounting Ohio's importance in winning elections by denying that Clinton's victory there means anything.

So Ohio is some Magical state now, and her winning there by a few percentage points makes her the better candidate?

this really is superstitious bullshit. What's next, McCain saying he's destined to win because he kissed the blarney stone?

However, it is actually filled with so much rhetoric and hate, I find myself uninspired to hash it out for you.

excuses are like #ssoholes buddy... finish the line yourself. Care to respond to my argument made a few pages ago about the states that even your map shows that Obama could put in play? And don't give me more of your usual answers about "I'm just going to say the opposite of you." Liuzzo: Well, I think that statistical analysis shows there is no real demonstrable difference within the margin of error so X state may go this way. CH: No it won't it'll stay red. I think I just summed up most of the past few month's debates with you. I'm not baiting you, just telling you that you need to come a little stronger with your arguments.

Maybe in the past, but not anymore. Obama has a statistically insignificant advantage over Clinton when mashed up with McCain, according to the latest polls.

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

Nevertheless, I stand firm that the factor of race in this election has destroyed any chances of a Clinton victory in the general.

Wouldn't it help her if people are more racist than they are sexist?

Ever look at Hillary's negative numbers. You can't polarized half the country and hope to win.

You make it about race when you start going into racial demographics.
I'm talking about facts. It is factually true that is important to win Ohio and Florida. It is also a fact that key demographics in both states are white working class and elderly voters, demographics that Clinton has consistently performed better with. It is not about racial discrimination, as many would have it -- it's about election results, key swing states, and election strategies. Saying that it's "about race" just proves my point that any issue that touches on race can be twisted to imply racism.

source?
Here's just a few: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/opinion/polls/main3949396.shtml

http://www.veracifier.com/post/6357/poll-shows-gender-harder-to-overcome-than-race

http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/current_tv/2008/04/05/ctv_walsh/

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/april/040907ui-poll.html


no weaker than any democrat anywhere. stronger than clinton is, actually.

you meant that he is weak in appalachia.

well, can't be everything to everyone.
You...haven't been following the election, have you? Workers without college degrees and elderly voters have consistently, state-to-state, been considered Clinton's strongest demographics. If you don't know that, then you no virtually nothing about this race.

Gerradiline Ferraro was forced to resign, amid much press about the incident.


The electorate in Florida is made up largely of elderly white voters, whom Clinton performs very well with. You're going to tell me that a win by 17 percentage points in a state with a candidate's key demographic is soley due to name recognition?


I doubt he discounts the importance either. Unfortunately, many people seem to be discounting Ohio's importance in winning elections by denying that Clinton's victory there means anything.

After days. They sure as shit should have made a big deal about it as it was intentionally derogetory and downplaying the accomplishments of a black man because he's black. He can earn his stripes on his own, he doesn't need Ferraro to tell him how he did it. You cannot base an election on Florida and Ohio. Expecially since the difference was far less than 1%. That 1% could never change right?

You didn't say that someone would have to resign. You said there would be riots.
Based on the example of men shouting, "Iron my sheets!", yes. Translate to that a racial issue. Imagine someone yelling at an Obama rallying, "Plow my fields!" What do you think would have happened? Meanwhile, Jocabia attempted to mischaracterize what happened with Geraldine Ferraro, acting as if it went quietly unnoticed. That is a bald-faced lie.

So Ohio is some Magical state now, and her winning there by a few percentage points makes her the better candidate?

this really is superstitious bullshit. What's next, McCain saying he's destined to win because he kissed the blarney stone?
There's a difference between ancient myths and election strategies. Not only did she win Ohio, but she consistently performs well among key demographics there. And it's not just Ohio -- it's also Florida, another place where she performs well among key demographics. That's two states that many experts call imperatives to win in a general election where she has won the primary, and where her strongest demographics make up a large part of the voting bloc. It's not superstition -- it's logic.

That's two states that many experts call imperatives to win in a general election where she has won the primary, and where her strongest demographics make up a large part of the voting bloc. It's not superstition -- it's logic.

There's a long road between now and the general election, and there's no way Hillary can win the nomination. It's impossible unless she carries 90% or more of every remaining contest. May as well focus on the general and stop trying to fight an impossible battle.

Why is Hillary staying in?

I'm talking about facts.

Facts related to race. You can't say, "I'm examining racial demographics, but it shouldn't be about race." You've made it about race.

It is also a fact that key demographics in both states are white working class and elderly voters, demographics that Clinton has consistently performed better with. It is not about racial discrimination, as many would have it -- it's about election results, key swing states, and election strategies.

Some of those voters say that it is about race. Those voters are being racist.

*shrug*

Saying that it's "about race" just proves my point that any issue that touches on race can be twisted to imply racism.

Not at all. All I said was that you cannot make race an issue, and then say it shouldn't be about race. If you think racial demographics are an issue, then you have made it about race.

You...haven't been following the election, have you? Workers without college degrees and elderly voters have consistently, state-to-state, been considered Clinton's strongest demographics. If you don't know that, then you no virtually nothing about this race.

And yet Obama has, for the most part, been gaining in all of those demographics.

It is also important to note that a person who will vote for Clinton over Obama will not necessarily vote for McCain over Obama. Many of the voters in Democratic primaries are hard-core Democrats. There is very little reason they would have to defect to the Republican side.

Based on the example of men shouting, "Iron my sheets!", yes. Translate to that a racial issue. Imagine someone yelling at an Obama rallying, "Plow my fields!" What do you think would have happened?

Most likely the same thing that happened with the "iron my sheets" incident. Most of us would think, "Wow, those guys are assholes" and then get on with life.

Meanwhile, Jocabia attempted to mischaracterize what happened with Geraldine Ferraro, acting as if it went quietly unnoticed. That is a bald-faced lie.

Where did he say that?

There's a long road between now and the general election, and there's no way Hillary can win the nomination. It's impossible unless she carries 90% or more of every remaining contest. May as well focus on the general and stop trying to fight an impossible battle.

Why is Hillary staying in?

There's a lot of theories. I would just say denial. Technically, she could win in an alternative situation with the superdelegates going to her, but that's not what's been happening. I agree that it's over for her. I'm just stating my opinion that, if blacks wouldn't go to McCain in flocks, she'd be the stronger general election candidate. Of course, there's a similar problem with women defecting to McCain, but Clinton does not capture nearly as much of the white women vote as Obama does the black vote.

That being said, it's a shame that this election has come down to voting for the candidate who looks like you instead of the best candidate for the general election. If the latter were the case, I believe that Clinton would be the better nominee, and the Democrats would have a better chance at the White House.

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/05/20/tomo/story.jpg

You...haven't been following the election, have you? Workers without college degrees and elderly voters have consistently, state-to-state, been considered Clinton's strongest demographics. If you don't know that, then you no virtually nothing about this race.

yes, clinton takes the over 65 crowd. good for her!

but obama has routinely won the lower income/less educated white vote. he'll win them in oregon tonight, actually. and where he hasn't, it has often been fairly close - well, outside of appalachia and the south anyways.

Facts related to race. You can't say, "I'm examining racial demographics, but it shouldn't be about race." You've made it about race.
Exactly -- facts about race. I never denied that I was discussing facts about race.

Not at all. All I said was that you cannot make race an issue, and then say it shouldn't be about race. If you think racial demographics are an issue, then you have made it about race.
No, I'm examining the fact that the voters have made it about race, not me.

And yet Obama has, for the most part, been gaining in all of those demographics.
True, but I'd rather have the candidate who is already solid with those demographics for a general election -- if I wasn't confident that blacks would drift to McCain if she were nominated.

It is also important to note that a person who will vote for Clinton over Obama will not necessarily vote for McCain over Obama. Many of the voters in Democratic primaries are hard-core Democrats. There is very little reason they would have to defect to the Republican side.
Not according to many current polls, but I'm confident that they'll change by election time.

Most likely the same thing that happened with the "iron my sheets" incident. Most of us would think, "Wow, those guys are assholes" and then get on with life.
You're really going to tell me that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wouldn't be on TV taking a shit on everything, and that black groups across the country wouldn't be up in arms? Can I ask you a question: do you live in the United States?

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/05/20/tomo/story.jpg

Epic win.

There's a lot of theories. I would just say denial. Technically, she could win in an alternative situation with the superdelegates going to her, but that's not what's been happening. I agree that it's over for her. I'm just stating my opinion that, if blacks wouldn't go to McCain in flocks, she'd be the stronger general election candidate. Of course, there's a similar problem with women defecting to McCain, but Clinton does not capture nearly as much of the white women vote as Obama does the black vote.

That being said, it's a shame that this election has come down to voting for the candidate who looks like you instead of the best candidate for the general election. If the latter were the case, I believe that Clinton would be the better nominee, and the Democrats would have a better chance at the White House.

Because the only reason that blacks would favor Obama is because he's black? Or maybe you're suggesting that the only reason to feel disenchanted with the Democratic party if Clinton won the nomination would be because she's not black?

There are those (of any gender or ethnicity) who *gasp* think Obama is the better candidate. There are also those who think the person who wins the actual contests should be the nominee, rather than having a bunch of party elitists choose over the heads of the people.

And I've got news for you, it wouldn't just be black voters that you'd lose. In contests that allow it, Obama has been pulling in record numbers of Independent voters and young voters new to the process. I'd say that an Independent would be much more likely to end up voting McCain in the general than a party loyalist if they felt cheated by the Democratic party. And young voters can get disillusioned with the whole process rather quickly.

For my part, I wouldn't know who to vote for in a Clinton v. McCain race. I might go 3rd party or even use the write-in option.

There's a lot of theories. I would just say denial. Technically, she could win in an alternative situation with the superdelegates going to her, but that's not what's been happening. I agree that it's over for her. I'm just stating my opinion that, if blacks wouldn't go to McCain in flocks, she'd be the stronger general election candidate. Of course, there's a similar problem with women defecting to McCain, but Clinton does not capture nearly as much of the white women vote as Obama does the black vote.

That being said, it's a shame that this election has come down to voting for the candidate who looks like you instead of the best candidate for the general election. If the latter were the case, I believe that Clinton would be the better nominee, and the Democrats would have a better chance at the White House.

Blacks vote 95% for Dems regardless. I doubt it'd matter who the candidate is unless it was Strom Thurmand running.

After days.
And that changes what? She was still forced to step down.

They sure as shit should have made a big deal about it as it was intentionally derogetory and downplaying the accomplishments of a black man because he's black.
Sorry, but Ferraro was right: Obama attracted attention because of his race. Of course, she was wrong to assert that he has nothing to offer as a candidate because of that fact. Race may have put his foot in the door, but his skills at delivering speeches and campaigning are what have gotten him this far (not to mention Hillary's faults).

Exactly -- facts about race. I never denied that I was discussing facts about race.

Then it is about race.

No, I'm examining the fact that the voters have made it about race, not me.

You are saying that a candidate should be chosen based on those who have made it about race - essentially choosing a candidate by race.

You're really going to tell me that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wouldn't be on TV taking a shit on everything, and that black groups across the country wouldn't be up in arms?

I have no reason to believe they'd be any more or less up in arms than feminists were about the sheets comments. Would Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson complain about it? Of course! But that hardly amounts to "riots".

Can I ask you a question: do you live in the United States?

Yup.

Because the only reason that blacks would favor Obama is because he's black? Or maybe you're suggesting that the only reason to feel disenchanted with the Democratic party if Clinton won the nomination would be because she's not black?
You want to tell me it's purely do to his qualifications and message as a candidate that Obama's support among the black demographic is in the 90%-range, yet that's not true for any other demographic of his? It's the same as the white woman effect with Hillary, though she doesn't capture as much of that demographic as Obama does of the black demographic.

I already outlined my reasons for black defection in the case of a Clinton nomination. Race has already been made a huge issue in this election -- the seeds of racism have been planted and bloomed. In light of this, if the white political establishment selected a white candidate over the black one who won the popular vote and elected delegate totals, the shit would hit the fan.

And I've got news for you, it wouldn't just be black voters that you'd lose. In contests that allow it, Obama has been pulling in record numbers of Independent voters and young voters new to the process. I'd say that an Independent would be much more likely to end up voting McCain in the general than a party loyalist if they felt cheated by the Democratic party. And young voters can get disillusioned with the whole process rather quickly.
That's a good point, but as it's already been pointed out, large numbers of people are defecting to the Democrats in special elections in GOP strongholds. Independents are much more likely to turn Democratic this election round. Besides, Clinton has beaten Obama in contests that allowed independents to vote, nonetheleast in Ohio.

I already outlined my reasons for black defection in the case of a Clinton nomination. Race has already been made a huge issue in this election -- the seeds of racism have been planted and bloomed. In light of this, if the white political establishment selected a white candidate over the black one who won the popular vote and elected delegate totals, the shit would hit the fan.

This is the real issue, I think. If she'd won fairly, I don't think she'd have any problems, but giving the nomination to her now would be widely seen as her "stealing" it from Obama, It would literally be that America voted for a black person, and a white person was elected. that would, I think, piss some people off hardcore.

And that changes what? She was still forced to step down.


Sorry, but Ferraro was right: Obama attracted attention because of his race. Of course, she was wrong to assert that he has nothing to offer as a candidate because of that fact. Race may have put his foot in the door, but his skills at delivering speeches and campaigning are what have gotten him this far (not to mention Hillary's faults).

No, Obama was originally thrust into the spotlight at DNC 2004, when he gave an amazing speech. Then his speaking ability, his message, and his campaigning ability, plus the incompetence of the Clinton campaign, have gotten him this far.

This is because so much of this election has already been about race, and blacks uniformly support Obama -- moreso than white women favor Clinton.

You realize this wasn't true until several people from the Clinton camp (in this case I don't mean the ideas were endorsed by Clinton) start race-baiting. Race-baiting tends to be self-fulfilling. Initially, Obama wasn't black enough. Then he was "getting a free ride". Is it really surprising that when Hillary talks about how white people won't vote for him that black people feel like they have to rally behind Obama in order to even things out?

Gerradiline Ferraro was forced to resign, amid much press about the incident.

Which is exactly what would happen if someone on the Obama camp had said Hillary got where she was due to affirmative action. However, that's a far cry from riots. Hyperbole much?

But, hey, my claiming there were no riots is a bold-face lie, right? You can actually link to the riots, no?


The electorate in Florida is made up largely of elderly white voters, whom Clinton performs very well with. You're going to tell me that a win by 17 percentage points in a state with a candidate's key demographic is soley due to name recognition?

No, I'm going to tell you that we don't know what would have happened. Obama has won largely white states, some of with large elderly populations. He's favored to win Montana. He won Alaska, Iowa and several other largely white populations.


I doubt he discounts the importance either. Unfortunately, many people seem to be discounting Ohio's importance in winning elections by denying that Clinton's victory there means anything.

It doesn't mean anything to whether or not Obama will win it. He's running nearly even there during a time when two candidates are attacking him and McCain is running virtually unopposed.

You realize this wasn't true until several people from the Clinton camp (in this case I don't mean the ideas were endorsed by Clinton) start race-baiting. Race-baiting tends to be self-fulfilling. Initially, Obama wasn't black enough. Then he was "getting a free ride". Is it really surprising that when Hillary talks about how white people won't vote for him that black people feel like they have to rally behind Obama in order to even things out?

IIRC Clinton was ahead or at least close with black voters until Bill's comments before SC. Before that Clinton had high levels of support among blacks (Bill was the "first black president" :rolleyes: ) and her campaign squandered by trying to take some of the white vote away from him.

You want to tell me it's purely do to his qualifications and message as a candidate that Obama's support among the black demographic is in the 90%-range, yet that's not true for any other demographic of his?

For many, I'm sure that it is.

I already outlined my reasons for black defection in the case of a Clinton nomination. Race has already been made a huge issue in this election -- the seeds of racism have been planted and bloomed. In light of this, if the white political establishment selected a white candidate over the black one who won the popular vote and elected delegate totals, the shit would hit the fan.

And it wouldn't just be with members of the black community.

That's a good point, but as it's already been pointed out, large numbers of people are defecting to the Democrats in special elections in GOP strongholds.

It's unlikely to be large numbers of hard-core Republicans, though. In many of those areas, Democrats and Republicans have been rather interchangeable over the years.

Independents are much more likely to turn Democratic this election round.

Not necessarily. That's the interesting thing about being Independent. We don't feel tied to vote based on what letter is next to someone's name. McCain has traditionally pulled quite a few Independents himself. There's a good chance that many Independents who voted for Obama would switch over in a McCain v. Clinton race.

Besides, Clinton has beaten Obama in contests that allowed independents to vote, nonetheleast in Ohio.

And Obama has beaten Clinton in states that are majority white with blue collar workers.

But Obama has taken the majority of the Independent vote in most contests - even ones he didn't win.

Meanwhile, Jocabia attempted to mischaracterize what happened with Geraldine Ferraro, acting as if it went quietly unnoticed. That is a bald-faced lie.

Let's see exactly what Jocabia said.

Yeah. Pretty much. Except invoking racism is a much stronger tool than invoking sexism. Poll after poll showing that sex matters more to people when making a decision about who to vote for clearly demonstates this, as does the fact that statements made by men in NH to "iron my sheets" barely was mentioned in the media, while if those had been racial statements, there would be riots.

Riots? You mean there were riots when the Obama-monkey came out? Or when Geraldine Ferraro called the Obama candidacy affirmative action? Those riots? The riots that never happened?

Hmmm... yeah, I mischaracterized GF's comments when I said there were no riots when she said them? Link to the riots. Or is it POSSIBLE that there is a far-cry between "quietly unnoticed" and "riots"?

And that changes what? She was still forced to step down.


Sorry, but Ferraro was right: Obama attracted attention because of his race. Of course, she was wrong to assert that he has nothing to offer as a candidate because of that fact. Race may have put his foot in the door, but his skills at delivering speeches and campaigning are what have gotten him this far (not to mention Hillary's faults).

Yeah, but that was the point. She declared he was beating Hillary because he was black. If Obama attracted attention because of his race then she attracted attention because of her gender. You can't have it both ways.

And that changes what? She was still forced to step down.

So was the person who called Hillary Clinton a monster. This proves what exactly?

Sorry, but Ferraro was right: Obama attracted attention because of his race. Of course, she was wrong to assert that he has nothing to offer as a candidate because of that fact. Race may have put his foot in the door, but his skills at delivering speeches and campaigning are what have gotten him this far (not to mention Hillary's faults).

Obama attracted attention for a whole lot of reasons. Race has certainly been a factor both for and against him.

She said race had gotten him this far, which you show to be wrong with your own comments. She was wrong. She played up race as the most important factor in his candidacy and she was rightly ostracized for it. She played into the nonsensical idea that black people in this country are getting a free ride and she should be ashamed.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
She explicitly attributes his candidacy to the color of his skin.

But it's not like she's got a history of such things.

If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race.

Identical comments about two very different black men whose candidacy she discounted as being a gift given by their skin color.

She then went on to complain the Obama campaign called her a racist, which they never did. She then called Obama a sexist. Incidentally, she's not a racist for saying this, but Obama, who according to her is a sexist, has never even hinted Hillary's campaign only happened because she was a woman.

But, hey, she's right. Clearly the best way to get ahead in this country is be a black male with a Muslim name. I know as a white male with an Anglican name I've often wished I could just get a break like my black friends.

Wait, I just tuned in...is Kentucky being competitive??? Did I miss something?

EDIT: Oh, no it's not. Just the early parts...I see...

Now, that is a buttwhooping by any standard. Clinton certainly did start turning in some stellar performances at the end.

Something of interest. There is evidence of both sexism AND racism in the exit polls.

We'll look at Kentucky

21% admitted to being racist.
81% of the racists voted for Clinton
Just 15% of them voted for Obama


And 16% admitted to being sexist. Clearly Clinton was right.

Except -
79% of the sexists voted for Clinton
Just 18% voted for Obama

So not only is there more racism than sexism in KY but BOTH benefit Clinton. I wonder what the next Clinton excuse will be.

EDIT: In other words they're favoring her by about double the overall difference in outcome.

Now, that is a buttwhooping by any standard. Clinton certainly did start turning in some stellar performances at the end.

Something of interest. There is evidence of both sexism AND racism in the exit polls.

We'll look at Kentucky

21% admitted to being racist.
81% of the racists voted for Clinton
Just 15% of them voted for Obama


And 16% admitted to being sexist. Clearly Clinton was right.

Except -
79% of the sexists voted for Clinton
Just 18% voted for Obama

So not only is there more racism than sexism in KY but BOTH benefit Clinton. I wonder what the next Clinton excuse will be.

I doubt it will change anything. She'll continue to complain about sexism, ignoring these polls, because her uneducated base will just buy it.

Now, that is a buttwhooping by any standard. Clinton certainly did start turning in some stellar performances at the end.


This was really a dissapointing mistake on Obama's part, not contesting WV and Kentucky full throttle. Maybe the outlook really was that bad, and contesting them would have made it look like no matter how hard he tried he can't make gains, but it was just this kind of mistake that gave him the lead over Clinton and now it will fuel the bonfire that she's going to make to try and come back from that.

Other states -

West Virginia
18% sexists
75% went to Hillary
19% Obama

22% Racist
82% Hillary
12% Obama

Clinton by 41%

Indiana
16% Sexist
59% Clinton
41% Obama

16% Racist
53% Clinton
47% Obama

Clinton by 2%

North Carolina
21% Sexist
54% Obama
43% Clinton

18% Racist
64% Obama
35% Clinton

Obama won by 15%

So basically, they tend to follow the winner, but they tend to favor Hillary by considerable higher margins than the outcome, especially in WV and KY.

EDIT: I'll add Oregon when it posts.

This was really a dissapointing mistake on Obama's part, not contesting WV and Kentucky full throttle. Maybe the outlook really was that bad, and contesting them would have made it look like no matter how hard he tried he can't make gains, but it was just this kind of mistake that gave him the lead over Clinton and now it will fuel the bonfire that she's going to make to try and come back from that.

I think she's going to gain enough that she can finally claim an actual lead while counting all 50 states.

Other states -

So basically, they tend to follow the winner, but they tend to favor Hillary by considerable higher margins than the outcome, especially in WV and KY.

I wonder if the "sexist" includes those who are biased against men?

Now, that is a buttwhooping by any standard. Clinton certainly did start turning in some stellar performances at the end.

Something of interest. There is evidence of both sexism AND racism in the exit polls.

We'll look at Kentucky

21% admitted to being racist.
81% of the racists voted for Clinton
Just 15% of them voted for Obama


And 16% admitted to being sexist. Clearly Clinton was right.

Except -
79% of the sexists voted for Clinton
Just 18% voted for Obama

So not only is there more racism than sexism in KY but BOTH benefit Clinton. I wonder what the next Clinton excuse will be.

EDIT: In other words they're favoring her by about double the overall difference in outcome.

ftw, good job Joc

Other states -

West Virginia
18% sexists
75% went to Hillary
19% Obama

22% Racist
82% Hillary
12% Obama

Clinton by 41%

Indiana
16% Sexist
59% Clinton
41% Obama

16% Racist
53% Clinton
47% Obama

Clinton by 2%

North Carolina
21% Sexist
54% Obama
43% Clinton

18% Racist
64% Obama
35% Clinton

Obama won by 15%

So basically, they tend to follow the winner, but they tend to favor Hillary by considerable higher margins than the outcome, especially in WV and KY.

EDIT: I'll add Oregon when it posts.

And Joc keeps the hits rolling. I'm only commenting because there's not much more for me to add except you just skewered your opponent.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_party_coalesces_around_oba.php

Obama is doing much better among Hispanics and even women. These are Hillary strongholds.

Well, it's not going to go very far even so. By the way, when do the Oregon primaries close? CNN's election centre is notoriously horrible about not telling me that really important fact.

Well, it's not going to go very far even so. By the way, when do the Oregon primaries close? CNN's election centre is notoriously horrible about not telling me that really important fact.

38 minutes

Clinton's massive victory in Kentucky further erodes Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote. Depending on whose math you follow, it might even put her ahead. Obama's lead in the delegate count is irrelevant unless he also wins the popular vote.

Why?

Because this is the same party that bitched mightily in 2000 when Al Gore was denied the Presidency even though he got more votes than George W. Bush. If Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote, then the Democratic Party is obligated on principle to nominate her. If it does not, then it essentially lays itself bare as a collection of bald-faced political opportunists. I am confident that with the continued support of hardworking Americans, we can overcome Barack Obama's lead in delegates and campaign cash and go on to win the Presidency.

38 minutes
Thankyewverymuch.

Clinton's massive victory in Kentucky further erodes Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote. Depending on whose math you follow, it might even put her ahead. Obama's lead in the delegate count is irrelevant unless he also wins the popular vote.

Why?

Because this is the same party that bitched mightily in 2000 when Al Gore was denied the Presidency even though he got more votes than George W. Bush. If Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote, then the Democratic Party is obligated on principle to nominate her. If it does not, then it essentially lays itself bare as a collection of bald-faced political opportunists. I am confident that with the continued support of hardworking Americans, we can overcome Barack Obama's lead in delegates and campaign cash and go on to win the Presidency.

The only possible math that you can follow to get there is if you count Florida, in which there was no campaigning (which favors the establishment candidate), and Michigan, in which Obama was not on the ballot. And you count them according to the results they got there. But you don't count any caucus states. If you do all of those, then Clinton is winning the popular vote.
Oh the mental gymnastics that you accept so blindly.

Clinton's massive victory in Kentucky further erodes Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote. Depending on whose math you follow, it might even put her ahead. Obama's lead in the delegate count is irrelevant unless he also wins the popular vote.

Why?

Because this is the same party that bitched mightily in 2000 when Al Gore was denied the Presidency even though he got more votes than George W. Bush. If Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote, then the Democratic Party is obligated on principle to nominate her. If it does not, then it essentially lays itself bare as a collection of bald-faced political opportunists. I am confident that with the continued support of hardworking Americans, we can overcome Barack Obama's lead in delegates and campaign cash and go on to win the Presidency.

The problem is that in the general there actually IS a popular vote. Unfortunately, several states don't actually vote in that way. They caucus and some don't reveal the votes, like IA.

In addition, there were two states where neither campaigned which very much favors the better known candidate. I know she keeps touting it, but there isn't really a popular vote.

I'll give you this much, if you could all the votes cast, she's now FINALLY in the lead.

Regardless, there is a set of rules by which the nomination is won. And Obama won by them.

The only possible math that you can follow to get there is if you count Florida, in which there was no campaigning (which favors the establishment candidate), and Michigan, in which Obama was not on the ballot. And you count them according to the results they got there. But you don't count any caucus states. If you do all of those, then Clinton is winning the popular vote.
Oh the mental gymnastics that you accept so blindly.

I do not accept so blindly, and I have often stated what I think should be done with the votes in Florida and Michigan. The fact is that while Obama has definitely shifted his attentions to John McCain, Hillary Clinton is still fighting for this nomination. And despite being massively outspent, she piled up a huge victory in Kentucky, and the polls show her trailing Obama by a narrow edge in Oregon.

If Clinton wins the popular vote, what do you think should be done?

The problem is that in the general there actually IS a popular vote. Unfortunately, several states don't actually vote in that way. They caucus and some don't reveal the votes, like IA.

In addition, there were two states where neither campaigned which very much favors the better known candidate. I know she keeps touting it, but there isn't really a popular vote.

I'll give you this much, if you could all the votes cast, she's now FINALLY in the lead.

Regardless, there is a set of rules by which the nomination is won. And Obama won by them.

According to the rules, you have to reach a certain number of delegates in order to be the nominee, and if current trends continue NEITHER of them are going to reach that number. The superdelegates will have to decide. If that is the case, what rationale do you think they should decide by?

Clinton's massive victory in Kentucky further erodes Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote. Depending on whose math you follow, it might even put her ahead.

only an idiot could think she's in the lead

Obama's lead in the delegate count is irrelevant unless he also wins the popular vote.

Why?

Because this is the same party that bitched mightily in 2000 when Al Gore was denied the Presidency even though he got more votes than George W. Bush.

...or "noted that gore actually won florida under any fair count, and therefore won the presidency".

the popular vote vs electoral college thing was an argument for abolishing it in the future, not for determining the winner of that election - and nobody ever did anything about that anyway.

I do not accept so blindly, and I have often stated what I think should be done with the votes in Florida and Michigan. The fact is that while Obama has definitely shifted his attentions to John McCain, Hillary Clinton is still fighting for this nomination. And despite being massively outspent, she piled up a huge victory in Kentucky, and the polls show her trailing Obama by a narrow edge in Oregon.

If Clinton wins the popular vote, what do you think should be done?

There is no popular vote. Several states don't vote that way in primary season. By calling for the popular vote you're essentially disenfranchising several states. They played by the rules that allowed for their delegates to be apportioned by caucus. Now you'd be changing those rules midgame to make caucusing a TERRIBLE idea. If popular vote were a real metric all of those states would have a different system.

According to the rules, you have to reach a certain number of delegates in order to be the nominee, and if current trends continue NEITHER of them are going to reach that number. The superdelegates will have to decide. If that is the case, what rationale do you think they should decide by?

Current trends? After tonight he should be within 60 delegates and there are four contests left. Also, the Edwards delegates seem to be going his way He's getting about 10 delegates a week minimum. Do the math.

She didn't want them to choose by votes. How do you know? She started with over 100 supers before the voting even began. They're following the voting outcomes. That's why Hillary has been losing them about 4 to 1 since Obama started winning contests.

I do not accept so blindly, and I have often stated what I think should be done with the votes in Florida and Michigan. The fact is that while Obama has definitely shifted his attentions to John McCain, Hillary Clinton is still fighting for this nomination. And despite being massively outspent, she piled up a huge victory in Kentucky, and the polls show her trailing Obama by a narrow edge in Oregon.

If Clinton wins the popular vote, what do you think should be done?

So you completely ignored the bit about the caucus states. Now, considering that was an extremely short post, I cannot believe you simply missed it; I can only conclude you intentionally skipped it because it was inconvenient for you.

If Clinton wins the popular vote, what do you think should be done?

she should be laughed at for losing at 5 card draw poker because she was trying to play go fish.

I think what's being missed in the commotion are two very important questions:

1.) Which of these candidates is more likely to achieve victory in November?
2.) Which of these candidates has the greater amount of popular support?

Every set of polls I have seen lately show Clinton holding sway in states with a total of almost 300 electoral votes. Obama can only lay claim to approximately 240. He places more states in play than Clinton, but she lays claim to Big Three. There are more tossup states with Obama, but Clinton has more locks on the big swing states.

This has gotten so confusing it's amazing.

So you completely ignored the bit about the caucus states. Now, considering that was an extremely short post, I cannot believe you simply missed it; I can only conclude you intentionally skipped it because it was inconvenient for you.

I can't believe you're suggesting we should discard primary popular vote results for the sake of caucus states.

I could be wrong, as I have never participated in a caucus myself, but my understanding of it has been that it is traditionally a smaller-scale affair, with groups of people lobbying in auditoriums for their own candidates. Do you think that their numbers are equal to the primary states?

I think what's being missed in the commotion are two very important questions:

1.) Which of these candidates is more likely to achieve victory in November?
2.) Which of these candidates has the greater amount of popular support?

Every set of polls I have seen lately show Clinton holding sway in states with a total of almost 300 electoral votes. Obama can only lay claim to approximately 240. He places more states in play than Clinton, but she lays claim to Big Three. There are more tossup states with Obama, but Clinton has more locks on the big swing states.

This has gotten so confusing it's amazing.

1 - Well, I find it hard to believe that the candidate who started with a HUGE lead, had name recognition, has already been in the White House, and had the entire party behind her but lost is somehow going to be better in the general.

2 - In nearly every poll, it's Obama.

And, gee, look who switches to electoral counts when it's convenient. She's less POPULAR in almost EVERY poll. You wanted to talk about people. There it is. Absent a fairly clear effort by Republicans to keep her in, Obama would have won already.

1 - Well, I find it hard to believe that the candidate who started with a HUGE lead, had name recognition, has already been in the White House, and had the entire party behind her but lost is somehow going to be better in the general.

2 - In nearly every poll, it's Obama.

It's not enough to have people voting for you. You gotta have them voting in the right places. If Obama wins more votes than Clinton in the Deep South, but still loses those states to McCain by narrow margins, his appeal matters little. The rules of the electoral college alter the playing field.

I can't believe you're suggesting we should discard primary popular vote results for the sake of caucus states.

I could be wrong, as I have never participated in a caucus myself, but my understanding of it has been that it is traditionally a smaller-scale affair, with groups of people lobbying in auditoriums for their own candidates. Do you think that their numbers are equal to the primary states?

Oh, sure, why should we care about voters from caucuses? They're simply the people that care about it the most!

And before you go on that usual diatribe about how mean we, Obama supporters, are for disagreeing with you, the fact remains that they are voters too.

This is reality: DEAL.

It's not enough to have people voting for you. You gotta have them voting in the right places.

do you have any 7s?

It's not enough to have people voting for you. You gotta have them voting in the right places. If Obama wins more votes than Clinton in the Deep South, but still loses those states to McCain by narrow margins, his appeal matters little. The rules of the electoral college alter the playing field.

You mean like pledged delegates in the primary? So do you want to talk about popular vote or not? Obama averages 9% better than Clinton across the country. And when they ACTUALLY voted, Obama beat her there too. So which would you like to count by? You want to count by the rules, in which case she lost or by popular vote in which case she's losing.

I can't believe you're suggesting we should discard primary popular vote results for the sake of caucus states.

I could be wrong, as I have never participated in a caucus myself, but my understanding of it has been that it is traditionally a smaller-scale affair, with groups of people lobbying in auditoriums for their own candidates. Do you think that their numbers are equal to the primary states?

Of course they numbers aren't equal. It's a different type of election. So basically you think it's best for the Dems to tell several states "I know you played by the rules, but we're changing them and you don't count"?

Among other places, I keep track of polling data on this website:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

For the past six weeks, it has shown Clinton consistently winning in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. It has also shown Obama consistently losing in the last two states. Polls, of course, are whimsical. They cannot predict the future perfectly. But with such consistent results, one is left to wonder if indeed Clinton has strength in these states. She did win each of them in the primaries by wide margins.

I'm trying to think of a quote that best captures why Obama is going to win. Hmmmm... if only I could think of one.

It's not enough to have people voting for you. You gotta have them voting in the right places.

I'm trying to think of a quote that best captures why Obama is going to win. Hmmmm... if only I could think of one.

It's not enough to have people voting for you. You gotta have them voting in the right places.

Pardon my ignorance. But suppose the polls are right. Suppose Obama is the nominee, and he wins in Pennsylvania and then loses Ohio and Florida to John McCain. Is there some type of electoral map strategy you can put up that presents you with a realistic chance for victory? Even if you pick off North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado, you still don't compensate for the loss of Ohio and Florida.

Among other places, I keep track of polling data on this website:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

For the past six weeks, it has shown Clinton consistently winning in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. It has also shown Obama consistently losing in the last two states. Polls, of course, are whimsical. They cannot predict the future perfectly. But with such consistent results, one is left to wonder if indeed Clinton has strength in these states. She did win each of them in the primaries by wide margins.

So do you want the Supers to look at the results of states or popular vote? You were just talking about the popular vote a minute ago.

I agree with you. The supers should look at the results by state, and notice that Obama WON. Obviously the popular is not the way the rules are set in the general OR the primaries. Or do you just want to admit now, you want them to ignore everything but that which makes your candidate look good?

Obama is winning PA. He's competing in OH and FL. And with some of our friends on the right jumping on the ticket, there are even solidly red states in play. And currently NO ONE is running against Clinton. Obama stopped focusing on her weeks ago. In fact, the right has started supporting Clinton. Two candidates are running against Obama. And yet, he is more popular and he fares well in the general. I wonder what will happen when it's just him against McCain and the Clinton supporters unite behind him.

The only possible math that you can follow to get there is if you count Florida, in which there was no campaigning (which favors the establishment candidate), and Michigan, in which Obama was not on the ballot. And you count them according to the results they got there. But you don't count any caucus states. If you do all of those, then Clinton is winning the popular vote.
Oh the mental gymnastics that you accept so blindly.

I knew she would be back. Anytime there is some glimpse of hope she jumps on it. How many delegates come from Kentucky? Obama keeps picking up more and more supers and is pulling away from her. Woohoo, she won 2 states recently that 20+ of the population (in each state) admitted to being racist. This reminds me of when Rove was asked the question "did you look at that math, it doesn't look good." He responded, "they may have math, but we have THE math." Oh, and the majority of pledged delegates are in for Obama. This will cause even more supers to move to him.

Good night all. You deal with Shal's talking points this time. I've already had enough.

Pardon my ignorance. But suppose the polls are right. Suppose Obama is the nominee, and he wins in Pennsylvania and then loses Ohio and Florida to John McCain. Is there some type of electoral map strategy you can put up that presents you with a realistic chance for victory? Even if you pick off North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado, you still don't compensate for the loss of Ohio and Florida.

You seem hell-bent on assuming he will lose in both states despite the fact that he's currently trailing McCain in Florida, for instance, by one point, which will change when Hillary finally hears the fat lady sing.

I can't believe you're suggesting we should discard primary popular vote results for the sake of caucus states.

I could be wrong, as I have never participated in a caucus myself, but my understanding of it has been that it is traditionally a smaller-scale affair, with groups of people lobbying in auditoriums for their own candidates. Do you think that their numbers are equal to the primary states?

Did I say we should discard primary voters? No.

But you said we shouldn't consider people in caucus states. Incidentally, the caucus states are why we can't use popular vote as a metric-- we can't know the numbers from the caucus states. So really, saying "we should follow the popular vote" is saying that we should ignore the concerns of voters in what... almost a dozen states? (I can't recall how many caucus states there are.)
Now, if only the party had a system for determining how much the results in each state was worth, that they could use to choose people to send to a convention to choose their candidate, then we could count both primary and caucus states...

Oh, wait.

Clinton's massive victory in Kentucky further erodes Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote. Depending on whose math you follow, it might even put her ahead. Obama's lead in the delegate count is irrelevant unless he also wins the popular vote.

Why?

Because this is the same party that bitched mightily in 2000 when Al Gore was denied the Presidency even though he got more votes than George W. Bush. If Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote, then the Democratic Party is obligated on principle to nominate her. If it does not, then it essentially lays itself bare as a collection of bald-faced political opportunists. I am confident that with the continued support of hardworking Americans, we can overcome Barack Obama's lead in delegates and campaign cash and go on to win the Presidency.

Math is always math. Conversely spin is always spin.

Hard-working Americans = code for blue collar white people in WV ans KY

She will not win the popular vote. She will not win more delegates.

Pardon my ignorance. But suppose the polls are right. Suppose Obama is the nominee, and he wins in Pennsylvania and then loses Ohio and Florida to John McCain. Is there some type of electoral map strategy you can put up that presents you with a realistic chance for victory? Even if you pick off North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado, you still don't compensate for the loss of Ohio and Florida.

Sure. VA. NM. A new poll out showed that with Barr, even solid states like GA are in play. States where Obama has already gather a HUGE following.

Meanwhile, in only a two-person contest (excluding Barr) OH is even and there is still no Dem candidate. When the Clintonites line up behind Obama, McCain is in trouble. Big Trouble.

Current trends? After tonight he should be within 60 delegates and there are four contests left. Also, the Edwards delegates seem to be going his way He's getting about 10 delegates a week minimum. Do the math.

She didn't want them to choose by votes. How do you know? She started with over 100 supers before the voting even began. They're following the voting outcomes. That's why Hillary has been losing them about 4 to 1 since Obama started winning contests.

Yeah, what trends are we babbling about now? Obama will get very close to 2026 in pledged delegates alone. Give him 10% of the remaining supers and turn out the lights.

Obama is up 63-37 with 11% in. Obama will use this to win more of the popular vote that Hillary will not be able to touch. He'll get far more delegates than her tonight.

As a Kentuckian-in-Exile, I'm not surprised by the results, but I am a bit unhappy with the lack of Obama campaigning in my home state. I have been trying to persuade my two parents to vote for Obama, but it was difficult to do when Hillary is all over the place, and he wasn't. I must admit as well that it has somewhat lessened my opinion of him as a candidate. I understand there is always strategy, but as a candidate who talks about uniting the country, it is disheartening to see him abandon Kentucky and Appalachia.

Appalachia is one of the poorest and downtrodden areas of the nation, and often one of the most forgotten. It's sad to see them forgotten once again by the presumptive nominee of party who wishes to fight for the poor. I know many people want to write off Kentucky as racist and extremely conservative, which is in many ways fair, but it's more Democrat friendly than many would think. Kentucky went for Clinton both times, and Appalachia was a center of Johnson's War on Poverty, a legacy that many still hold in high regard. I can only hope Obama will take up the mantle of Edwards on the subject of poverty. If not for Kentucky, at least for West Virigina.

So you completely ignored the bit about the caucus states. Now, considering that was an extremely short post, I cannot believe you simply missed it; I can only conclude you intentionally skipped it because it was inconvenient for you.

and we have a winner. You can only pick from the small or medium shelf though. One more win and you can get a large or jumbo prize.

Math is always math. Conversely spin is always spin.

Hard-working Americans = code for blue collar white people in WV ans KY

She will not win the popular vote. She will not win more delegates.

We will see. Every time I bring up the electoral college, however, I get nothing but rosy rhetoric from the Obama people about how they will put all sorts of states in play.

Show me the states where you think you can win. The fact is that I've not seen any of the southern states put into play by Obama. He loses to McCain by smaller margins then Clinton in virtually every one, but he still usually loses by quite a bit:

Georgia: 39% to 53 % McCain
Louisiana 41% to 52% McCain
Virginia: 44% to 47% McCain
Alabama: 36% to 55% McCain

Obama may have a broader appeal in some of these states than Clinton, but his appeal matters little unless he can turn enough voters to win the state, and the numbers say he just doesn't have that strength. He wins Pennsylvania. But unlike Clinton, who turns Ohio and Florida into "Democrat-leaning", Obama can only bring those states to "Tossup". Meaning 50-50. That means the success or failure of Barack Obama's campaign will be decided by the flip of a coin, essentially.

Yeah, what trends are we babbling about now? Obama will get very close to 2026 in pledged delegates alone. Give him 10% of the remaining supers and turn out the lights.

Obama is up 63-37 with 11% in. Obama will use this to win more of the popular vote that Hillary will not be able to touch. He'll get far more delegates than her tonight.

We'll see. I think you're incorrect if you assume that an Obama victory automatically means that the Clinton supporters will shuffle quietly over to your side. Many of us have been very turned off by the comments of Barack Obama's supporters, and some of us have been turned off by Obama himself.

oh please let obama top 60% in oregon. that would be the most action my obama-landslide list has seen since feb.

I can't believe you're suggesting we should discard primary popular vote results for the sake of caucus states.

I could be wrong, as I have never participated in a caucus myself, but my understanding of it has been that it is traditionally a smaller-scale affair, with groups of people lobbying in auditoriums for their own candidates. Do you think that their numbers are equal to the primary states?

You can't throw out primary votes or caucus votes because that's the blasted system. Both primary states and caucus states are important. To quote Hillary, "you must count the votes in all 50 states." I guess that is true only when it helps her.

Edit: going to bed for the same reasons as before. I knew I'd get sucked into the nonsense by responding here.

Snip.

1- They are tossups CURRENTLY. With the hag ignoring her current state.

2- You seem to think that, should this be, effectively stolen from Obama, the people that voted for him, blacks in particular, would simply line up behind her, whereas the people in Clinton's camp mostly understand that Obama is winning more of, well, everything.

The fact is that I've not seen any of the southern states put into play by Obama.

check your eyes. your own source shows them quite clearly.

CNN projects Obama wins Oregon, according to my TV. He also clinched the pledged lead tonight.

Virginia: 44% to 47% McCain

That's not exactly a huge McCain lead.

Also note that the electoral college site relies heavily on the one poll used in RCP that shows Clinton winning and is completely useless given that polls when there's still a percieved fight for the nomination, Clinton is "throwing the kitchen sink at him", Clinton votes still pretend they won't vote for him, and McCain is under no scrutiny taken four months before the general mean nothing.

You can't throw out primary votes or caucus votes because that's the blasted system. Both primary states and caucus states are important. To quote Hillary, "you must count the votes in all 50 states." I guess that is true only when it helps her.

Hey, given that she claimed that pledged delegates aren't "pledged"...

(Incidentally a fact that blew up in her scolex in an almost cartoon-like fashion when a pledged switched from HER to Obama...)

Woohoo, she won 2 states recently that 20+ of the population (in each state) admitted to being racist.
Where did these people, in the numbers that you quote (+20%) actually admit that they were "racist"?

I often find myself torn between two competing extremes.

On the one hand, an awful lot of Obama supporters are insufferably arrogant and elitist. One of them even called me a "beer-swilling, pickup-driving, gun-toting hick", even though I own neither a pickup truck nor a gun.

On the other, I have goose-stepping Republican morons who call me other, less pleasant names and who startle me daily with their lack of knowledge about things which they have strong opinions about.

Every time I talk to the conservatives, I get pushed towards voting for Obama. And every time I talk to the Obama supporters, I get pushed towards John McCain. It's like neither side WANTS my support, which confounds me because either way this is gonna be a close election.

Where did these people, in the numbers that you quote (+20%) actually admit that they were "racist"?

in face-to-face exit polls

On the one hand, an awful lot of Obama supporters are insufferably arrogant and elitist.

Tit.

One of them even called me a "beer-swilling, pickup-driving, gun-toting hick", even though I own neither a pickup truck nor a gun.

Tat.

We will see. Every time I bring up the electoral college, however, I get nothing but rosy rhetoric from the Obama people about how they will put all sorts of states in play.

Show me the states where you think you can win. The fact is that I've not seen any of the southern states put into play by Obama. He loses to McCain by smaller margins then Clinton in virtually every one, but he still usually loses by quite a bit:

Georgia: 39% to 53 % McCain
Louisiana 41% to 52% McCain
Virginia: 44% to 47% McCain
Alabama: 36% to 55% McCain

Obama may have a broader appeal in some of these states than Clinton, but his appeal matters little unless he can turn enough voters to win the state, and the numbers say he just doesn't have that strength. He wins Pennsylvania. But unlike Clinton, who turns Ohio and Florida into "Democrat-leaning", Obama can only bring those states to "Tossup". Meaning 50-50. That means the success or failure of Barack Obama's campaign will be decided by the flip of a coin, essentially.

AS opposed you who just says Hillary will win these three states that are the only important numbers. We've already detailed, painfully, what states Obama puts in play.

CNN projects Obama wins Oregon, according to my TV. He also clinched the pledged lead tonight.



That's not exactly a huge McCain lead.

Also note that the electoral college site relies heavily on the one poll used in RCP that shows Clinton winning and is completely useless given that polls when there's still a percieved fight for the nomination, Clinton is "throwing the kitchen sink at him", Clinton votes still pretend they won't vote for him, and McCain is under no scrutiny taken four months before the general mean nothing.

There is no "pretend". I know a number of Clintonites myself who are preparing to back McCain in the fall.

1- They are tossups CURRENTLY. With the hag ignoring her current state.
.
Not necessary.

We'll see. I think you're incorrect if you assume that an Obama victory automatically means that the Clinton supporters will shuffle quietly over to your side. Many of us have been very turned off by the comments of Barack Obama's supporters, and some of us have been turned off by Obama himself.
Looking at a large number of Obama supporters in this thread, they have been brutal in their comments towards Clinton. I have also noticed this on many blogs and I truly believe that Clinton supporters are not blind. They see the hatred.....I am sure that this will have a negative impact on Obama come November.

The "inclusiveness" that Obama expounds has surely been lost on this crowd.

This plus the fiasco in Florida and Michigan clearly show how Democrats can shoot themselves in the foot.

AS opposed you who just says Hillary will win these three states that are the only important numbers. We've already detailed, painfully, what states Obama puts in play.

Dude.

I have seen a few states that Obama puts into play. He puts Colorado in. He threatens in North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia. He takes Iowa out of the Republican column.

All of these states have history, though. Both Florida and Ohio have gone Republican in the last two elections, and in a tossup situation I am inclined to suggest that recent history dictates they go Republican again. If that happens, your only hope for victory is to seize some fairly big states of your own out of the Republican column to compensate....and the only big ones Obama puts in play have been voting Republican for far longer than Ohio or Florida.

We'll see. I think you're incorrect if you assume that an Obama victory automatically means that the Clinton supporters will shuffle quietly over to your side. Many of us have been very turned off by the comments of Barack Obama's supporters, and some of us have been turned off by Obama himself.

Good, so vote against your own party and self interest. You want to hurt yourself and that's fine with me. Ever think that Obama supporters got a little big angrier when Bill made his comments in SC, and with Ferraro involved with her BS. These are just two incidents of race baiting in this campaign. So yes, many of us hate using another's as a negative. We also will generally attack the offender for taking this slimy, scummy road.

There is no "pretend". I know a number of Clintonites myself who are preparing to back McCain in the fall.

I'm pretty sure the number of these morons is smaller than the number of independents and even Republicans that will back Obama.

If they exist.

check your eyes. your own source shows them quite clearly.

No, that's not the plan of CH or Shal. Cherrypicking info is. Isn't that how we got into Iraq?

No, that's not the plan of CH or Shal. Cherrypicking info is. Isn't that how we got into Iraq?

Again you strike with the heated rhetoric. And again I ask you...what states do you think that you put in play?

Again you strike with the heated rhetoric. And again I ask you...what states do you think that you put in play?

If that's "heated" rhetoric, what you've been spewing is thermonuclear.

Looking at a large number of Obama supporters in this thread, they have been brutal in their comments towards Clinton. I have also noticed this on many blogs and I truly believe that Clinton supporters are not blind. They see the hatred.....I am sure that this will have a negative impact on Obama come November.

The "inclusiveness" that Obama expounds has surely been lost on this crowd.

This plus the fiasco in Florida and Michigan clearly show how Democrats can shoot themselves in the foot.

The majority of Clintonites I have spoken to who have telegraphed an intention to fight Obama in the general election are not doing so because of something McCain is doing. They're being beat up on by Obama's people and they have a natural impulse to fight back.

If that's "heated" rhetoric, what you've been spewing is thermonuclear.

Please answer the question.

As a Kentuckian-in-Exile, I'm not surprised by the results, but I am a bit unhappy with the lack of Obama campaigning in my home state. I have been trying to persuade my two parents to vote for Obama, but it was difficult to do when Hillary is all over the place, and he wasn't. I must admit as well that it has somewhat lessened my opinion of him as a candidate. I understand there is always strategy, but as a candidate who talks about uniting the country, it is disheartening to see him abandon Kentucky and Appalachia.

Appalachia is one of the poorest and downtrodden areas of the nation, and often one of the most forgotten. It's sad to see them forgotten once again by the presumptive nominee of party who wishes to fight for the poor. I know many people want to write off Kentucky as racist and extremely conservative, which is in many ways fair, but it's more Democrat friendly than many would think. Kentucky went for Clinton both times, and Appalachia was a center of Johnson's War on Poverty, a legacy that many still hold in high regard. I can only hope Obama will take up the mantle of Edwards on the subject of poverty. If not for Kentucky, at least for West Virigina.
This strategy flies in the face of Obama's declared "every state matters".

Obama is now showing his true clours as he closes in on the nomination. He knows he can win the nomination without wasting money in Kentucky and West Virginia. Too bad....so sad.

Looking at a large number of Obama supporters in this thread, they have been brutal in their comments towards Clinton. I have also noticed this on many blogs and I truly believe that Clinton supporters are not blind. They see the hatred.....I am sure that this will have a negative impact on Obama come November.

The "inclusiveness" that Obama expounds has surely been lost on this crowd.

This plus the fiasco in Florida and Michigan clearly show how Democrats can shoot themselves in the foot.

Unfortunately for you, when you claim anything anyone says that runs contrary to your idea is "hate", "brutal", and so on, like, you know, BUSH did, the meaning of these words when they're uttered by you fades out. Because you weaseled out of answering my points by claiming them to be hateful, as you did with Celtlund's, with Jocabia and with just about anyone that dares to disagree with you. So, yeah, what's your point again? That the world would be oh-so-much-more-jolly if we weren't around to burst your imaginary bubble in which Billary somehow has an easier time than Obama against McCain by ignoring the popular vote and pledged delegates?

What. Is. Your. POINT?

Where did these people, in the numbers that you quote (+20%) actually admit that they were "racist"?

CNN has been running with it right now.

Last week, in a post entitled West “By God Race Mattered” Virginia, I presented some tidbits from the exit polls that showed, among other things, that 22% of West Virginia Democratic primary voters said that race was an important factor in their vote and that Hillary Clinton captured 81% support among this group.

Though I never called these voters (almost all of whom were white, given the demographic composition of West Virginia) racist, a couple of commenters associated my presentation of these facts as labeling these whites racist and turned the argument around, suggesting that blacks were as “guilty” as whites when casting their votes en masse this primary season for Barack Obama. (As a note to readers: I cast a ballot for neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama in the February 5 primary in Illinois, my home state.)

I'll cite the numbers for KY later when they are available.

Please answer the question.

I'm pretty sure that I didn't put any states in play, as I'm not Barack Obama, nor am I a member of his campaign staff.

I find this "us-them" stuff silly, at best.

Unfortunately for you, when you claim anything anyone says that runs contrary to your idea is "hate", "brutal", and so on, like, you know, BUSH did, the meaning of these words when they're uttered by you fades out. Because you weaseled out of answering my points by claiming them to be hateful, as you did with Celtlund's, with Jocabia and with just about anyone that dares to disagree with you. So, yeah, what's your point again? That the world would be oh-so-much-more-jolly if we weren't around to burst your imaginary bubble in which Billary somehow has an easier time than Obama against McCain by ignoring the popular vote and pledged delegates?

What. Is. Your. POINT?

I believe his point is that the behavior of certain persons backing Obama's candidacy is turning off people backing Clinton's candidacy.

Furthermore, even if Barack Obama wins the primary, that does NOT mean he's stronger than Clinton in the general. The type of people voting in a primary are different than the people voting in the general.

The majority of Clintonites I have spoken to who have telegraphed an intention to fight Obama in the general election are not doing so because of something McCain is doing. They're being beat up on by Obama's people and they have a natural impulse to fight back.

Oh, those poor little Clintonistas. What did they do to get such shoddy treatment?

Wait, I know:

Essentially attacking Obama and anyone that supports him with everything from baseless claims to blatant racism, and then playing the victim.

I wonder where can we find similar behavior?

CNN has been running with it right now.

Last week, in a post entitled West “By God Race Mattered” Virginia, I presented some tidbits from the exit polls that showed, among other things, that 22% of West Virginia Democratic primary voters said that race was an important factor in their vote and that Hillary Clinton captured 81% support among this group.

Though I never called these voters (almost all of whom were white, given the demographic composition of West Virginia) racist, a couple of commenters associated my presentation of these facts as labeling these whites racist and turned the argument around, suggesting that blacks were as “guilty” as whites when casting their votes en masse this primary season for Barack Obama. (As a note to readers: I cast a ballot for neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama in the February 5 primary in Illinois, my home state.)

I'll cite the numbers for KY later when they are available.

Liuzzo. You seem to be avoiding my question. I want you to list states that you think Barack Obama puts in play. I'm offering you an opportunity to make an argument to me.

Oh, those poor little Clintonistas. What did they do to get such shoddy treatment?

Wait, I know:

Essentially attacking Obama and anyone that supports him with everything from baseless claims to blatant racism, and then playing the victim.

I wonder where can we find similar behavior?

That is EXACTLY the tone that is turning off the Clinton supporters, Heikoku. It's quite clear you don't like us.

It's also clear you have no chance in Hell of winning the Presidency without us.

Furthermore, even if Barack Obama wins the primary, that does NOT mean he's stronger than Clinton in the general. The type of people voting in a primary are different than the people voting in the general.

Sure.

The fact that he has more of a popular vote advantage, puts more states in play and, yes, manages to keep the ones Clinton would win, however, DOES.

But if I offended you by pointing this out or made a hateful post by disagreeing with you, please forgive me for my trespassing on your rights to say much worse things and cry foul when we just, you know, argue with you.

Unfortunately for you, when you claim anything anyone says that runs contrary to your idea is "hate", "brutal", and so on, like, you know, BUSH did, the meaning of these words when they're uttered by you fades out.
The words "fade out" because you don't want to hear them? Shall I go back and dig them all out?

Because you weaseled out of answering my points by claiming them to be hateful, as you did with Celtlund's, with Jocabia and with just about anyone that dares to disagree with you.
Your words are hateful towards Clinton. You despise her as do many here. Too bad...I believe that it will cost the Dems come November.

So, yeah, what's your point again? That the world would be oh-so-much-more-jolly if we weren't around to burst your imaginary bubble in which Billary somehow has an easier time than Obama against McCain by ignoring the popular vote and pledged delegates?

What. Is. Your. POINT?
My point is that this thing would be much closer if there had been anything meaningful with the votes in Michigan and Florida. It could have set a completely different set of wheels in motion had they been legal.

And you can feel smug and self congratulatory all you want, but I think the cold reality of November will be a sobering message to those who indulged in such wanton disregard for those who support Hillary Clinton.

Sure.

The fact that he has more of a popular vote advantage, puts more states in play and, yes, manages to keep the ones Clinton would win, however, DOES.

But if I offended you by pointing this out or made a hateful post by disagreeing with you, please forgive me for my trespassing on your rights to say much worse things and cry foul when we just, you know, argue with you.

That is an immature statement, and I will not be baited by it.

You also seem to miss my prior point which is:

OBAMA DOESN'T HOLD ALL THE STATES THAT CLINTON DOES!

Clinton has an edge in all three of the Big Three. Obama has an edge in one of the Big Three.

CNN has been running with it right now.

Last week, in a post entitled West “By God Race Mattered” Virginia, I presented some tidbits from the exit polls that showed, among other things, that 22% of West Virginia Democratic primary voters said that race was an important factor in their vote and that Hillary Clinton captured 81% support among this group.

Though I never called these voters (almost all of whom were white, given the demographic composition of West Virginia) racist, a couple of commenters associated my presentation of these facts as labeling these whites racist and turned the argument around, suggesting that blacks were as “guilty” as whites when casting their votes en masse this primary season for Barack Obama. (As a note to readers: I cast a ballot for neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama in the February 5 primary in Illinois, my home state.)

I'll cite the numbers for KY later when they are available.
Because someone states that "race of the candidate mattered" in the exit polls, does that automatically make them "racist"?

That is EXACTLY the tone that is turning off the Clinton supporters, Heikoku. It's quite clear you don't like us.

Look in the mirror and ask yourself who started it in this very thread, for one example, and in the run-up to Texas and Ohio for another.

It's also clear you have no chance in Hell of winning the Presidency without us.

Hillary has even less of a chance of winning the Presidency without Obama supporters, who will NOT vote for her if the nomination is decided by insiders.

That is EXACTLY the tone that is turning off the Clinton supporters, Heikoku. It's quite clear you don't like us.

It's also clear you have no chance in Hell of winning the Presidency without us.

Man, it's great to see people choosing something important like the President using the same method I use to select which local football team I dislike, the fans. That's not...incredibly misguided or anything.

That is EXACTLY the tone that is turning off the Clinton supporters, Heikoku. It's quite clear you don't like us.

It's also clear you have no chance in Hell of winning the Presidency without us.

Okay, I have a question for you. I don't mean this sarcastically or anything; it's an honest question.

What's worse? Some people being unkind to you, or 4 more years of Bush-style politics? If Obama does indeed get the nomination, can you not set aside your hurt feelings and vote based on the candidates' policies and encourage your fellow Clinton supporters to do the same? Or, barring that, vote 3rd party instead of voting for Bush III?

Again you strike with the heated rhetoric. And again I ask you...what states do you think that you put in play?

I'm not heated at all. VA, MI, NC, MD, CO, WA, OR, and possibly WI. I got all of this from th same site you used. There was another one that I liked more, but I can't find it again.

Because someone states that "race of the candidate mattered" in the exit polls, does that automatically make them "racist"?

I would say so. If you think somebody is more or less fit to be president based on their race, then you are a racist, no?

There is no "pretend". I know a number of Clintonites myself who are preparing to back McCain in the fall.

Ah, so anecdotal evidence of people you know means what now?

The words "fade out" because you don't want to hear them? Shall I go back and dig them all out?


Your words are hateful towards Clinton. You despise her as do many here. Too bad...I believe that it will cost the Dems come November.


My point is that this thing would be much closer if there had been anything meaningful with the votes in Michigan and Florida. It could have set a completely different set of wheels in motion had they been legal.

And you can feel smug and self congratulatory all you want, but I think the cold reality of November will be a sobering message to those who indulged in such wanton disregard for those who support Hillary Clinton.

No, the words fade out because, coming from a person that treats every bit of disagreement as hatred, they LOSE THEIR MEANING.

As for being "hateful towards Clinton", here we see a woman that's trying to disregard EVERY vote that's inconvenient to her, that has lied, weaseled and so on to try and get the nomination, over the will of the people. So, yeah, the only way I'd love her would be if I were into old ladies with too much makeup and a severe case of grandiose entitlement syndrome. I am not, my type is cute Asians or girls with long, black hair. Occultist girls too.

And as for "had they been legal", they weren't. Clinton agreed, back when it suited her. Now she wants Michigan counted as well, discounting the fact that she LITERALLY had no opponent there.

And Clinton will not be elected if, disregarding the MAJORITY that voted for Obama, she is handed the nomination.

Liuzzo. You seem to be avoiding my question. I want you to list states that you think Barack Obama puts in play. I'm offering you an opportunity to make an argument to me.

Hey, give me a time for a response. You know, more than 2 minutes. I have already done the work for you in other threads. Myself, CTOAN, Joc, etc. have been hammering you and CH on this for quite some time. Thanks for your offer. Usually when I post in the same thread as you it turns into "you're such a meanie." I answered your questions.

I'm not heated at all. VA, MI, NC, MD, CO, WA, OR, and possibly WI. I got all of this from th same site you used. There was another one that I liked more, but I can't find it again.

Virginia he'll lose in. Too conservative.

Michigan he would likely win, but Clinton is more likely to win there.
North Carolina he might win.
Colorado he might win.
Oregon both he and Clinton would win.
Wisconsin might go for either of them.

Even if you take North Carolina and Colorado out of the Republican column however, it does not compensate for the loss of Ohio and Florida.

Because someone states that "race of the candidate mattered" in the exit polls, does that automatically make them "racist"?

How the hell else do you interpret not voting for someone because their race matters? You keep spinning this fast and you'll bore a hole in the ground. I can say, "the fact that he's Canadian mattered to me" I would be discriminating because of nationality. How you can say race mattered (then 81% of those voted for Clinton) and not be racially biased. Or in other words: a MotherFing racist.

Virginia he'll lose in. Too conservative.

Michigan he would likely win, but Clinton is more likely to win there.
North Carolina he might win.
Colorado he might win.
Oregon both he and Clinton would win.
Wisconsin might go for either of them.

Even if you take North Carolina and Colorado out of the Republican column however, it does not compensate for the loss of Ohio and Florida.

Virginia is not as conservative as you might think. Northern Virginia is very blue.

A look at the rcp average of state polls disagrees with you. I might cede Florida to McCain, but not Ohio. The race in 2000 and 2004 were extremely close there. Change the votes by 100,00 and Ohio is won.

i really need bed. we can pick up tomorrow

How the hell else do you interpret not voting for someone because their race matters? You keep spinning this fast and you'll bore a hole in the ground. I can say, "the fact that he's Canadian mattered to me" I would be discriminating because of nationality. How you can say race mattered (then 81% of those voted for Clinton) and not be racially biased. Or in other words: a MotherFing racist.

You think that made ME proud? Almost one in five Ohioan voters said the same thing here. That disturbed the hell out of me. Just like being victimized by members of my own party disturbs me.

Virginia is not as conservative as you might think. Northern Virginia is very blue.

A look at the rcp average of state polls disagrees with you. I might cede Florida to McCain, but not Ohio. The race in 2000 and 2004 were extremely close there. Change the votes by 100,00 and Ohio is won.

Why cede one and teeter-totter another if you have a better shot at locking up both with her?

You think that made ME proud? Almost one in five Ohioan voters said the same thing here. That disturbed the hell out of me. Just like being victimized by members of my own party disturbs me.

You know what you and Clinton both do that irritates me?

You both attack, use whatever you want, soil your opponent, and when they talk back, defending themselves only, you two play the victim card. You began a discourse with me in the other thread with four words: "To hell with you.". And then you claimed to yourself the role of the victim. Hillary attacks Obama with ads, and runs a campaign in which the ends justify the means. When anyone talks back to her, she plays the gender victim card.

It's despicable from Hillary and it doesn't look any nicer from you.

And I'm calling you on it. If you feel you're the victim here, I'm sure the moderation forum is at your disposal. If you don't and just use it as a way to shut your opponents up, tell your story walking.

Why cede one and teeter-totter another if you have a better shot at locking up both with her?

Because, by disenfranchising a majority of voters in her own party, she'd lose both and others?

Okay, I have a question for you. I don't mean this sarcastically or anything; it's an honest question.

What's worse? Some people being unkind to you, or 4 more years of Bush-style politics? If Obama does indeed get the nomination, can you not set aside your hurt feelings and vote based on the candidates' policies and encourage your fellow Clinton supporters to do the same? Or, barring that, vote 3rd party instead of voting for Bush III?

Shal, could you please answer this? I genuinely would like to hear what you have to say.

What the hell is up with Wasco county in Oregon? I find the results very hard to believe. Something fishy is going on there.

What the hell is up with Wasco county in Oregon? I find the results very hard to believe. Something fishy is going on there.

Linky?

What the hell is up with Wasco county in Oregon? I find the results very hard to believe. Something fishy is going on there.

eh, it won't be tied after they finish counting

As a Kentuckian-in-Exile, I'm not surprised by the results, but I am a bit unhappy with the lack of Obama campaigning in my home state. I have been trying to persuade my two parents to vote for Obama, but it was difficult to do when Hillary is all over the place, and he wasn't. I must admit as well that it has somewhat lessened my opinion of him as a candidate. I understand there is always strategy, but as a candidate who talks about uniting the country, it is disheartening to see him abandon Kentucky and Appalachia.

Appalachia is one of the poorest and downtrodden areas of the nation, and often one of the most forgotten. It's sad to see them forgotten once again by the presumptive nominee of party who wishes to fight for the poor. I know many people want to write off Kentucky as racist and extremely conservative, which is in many ways fair, but it's more Democrat friendly than many would think. Kentucky went for Clinton both times, and Appalachia was a center of Johnson's War on Poverty, a legacy that many still hold in high regard. I can only hope Obama will take up the mantle of Edwards on the subject of poverty. If not for Kentucky, at least for West Virigina.

I don't think he's abandoning anyone. I think he's just tring to get into a game where he's already behind because McCain closed out his nomination much earlier. He's built a large infrastructure and he has much time for campaigning. I think you'll not only see him in Appalachia but you'll see him addressing the needs of Appalachia.

You know where he was recently? On a Native American Reservation. There is no more neglected class of people in the US by Presidential politics than Native Americans. Clearly, he's trying to run as President of the ENTIRE US.

Where did these people, in the numbers that you quote (+20%) actually admit that they were "racist"?

The exit polls showed that they admitted that race was a factor in their choice. These people dramatically went for Clinton. Incidentally, so did the sexists.

The majority of Clintonites I have spoken to who have telegraphed an intention to fight Obama in the general election are not doing so because of something McCain is doing. They're being beat up on by Obama's people and they have a natural impulse to fight back.

Again, what does this have to do with McCain? I ask you this every time this comes up and you avoid the question. Seriously, what kind of loon would pitch the country out the window for spite?

If you don't like Obama, say so. But if you're going to make nonsensical claims about how Obama doesn't deserve votes because of his supporters, that's just silly. Frankly, I don't believe that much of the country is so petty and absurd.

What I find amusing is that you broadbrush "us" as pompous and arrogant, but if anyone directs any such thing at ONLY YOU, you talk about how you're going to show us.

Liuzzo. You seem to be avoiding my question. I want you to list states that you think Barack Obama puts in play. I'm offering you an opportunity to make an argument to me.

I answered your claim. You replied by citing a poll where Barr isn't on the ballot. The problem being that Barr is on the ballot and he is putting all kinds of states in play.

Not only that, but you ignored the issue that Obama is coming up even when the nomination isn't settled. Completely. At what point are you going to start dealing with arguments?

That is an immature statement, and I will not be baited by it.

You also seem to miss my prior point which is:

OBAMA DOESN'T HOLD ALL THE STATES THAT CLINTON DOES!

Clinton has an edge in all three of the Big Three. Obama has an edge in one of the Big Three.

The Big Three? Obama has an edge in most of the US. He has an edge so often that he averages nine points better than her. I know you don't want to deal with the FACT that he's polling better, but it's a fact.

Meanwhile, she lost. It's that simple. She lost. Say what you like. Get as bitter as you like. She lost. And she didn't lose because of us. She lost because she ran a bad campaign. She SHOULD have won. She had every reason to win. That Obama beat her while starting SO far behind says A LOT about her ability to run a campaign.