NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess that means that Obama is guilty of cheap "sleazy back door politics"? :)

Quite cheap, his fiscal restraint impresses me. Hillary tried to buy one for a million, Obama bought 34 for about 1/3 of that.

Unfortunately, that poll does not support your argument in regards to Democratic supporters in Michigan.

It also shows, by RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html#polls), that overall, Obama is actually slipping in Michigan.

Edit: BTW, I don't like RCP. It sucks big time. Although, some of the articles are interesting.

How does RCP (an average of multiple polls) suck worse than an individual poll. Explain to me in detail how this statistically makes any sense please. A poll on the 23rd of May in Michigan really doesn't mean all that much. Obama has just now started campaigning in Michigan and Florida. How about we let him get a foothold before we rush to judgment? Oh, I forgot, that's not the Hillary sycophant way. It only matters that "All the voted count and Flordai and Michigan are seated at the convention."

I'd like to see Flordia and Michigan seated as well. I think everyone agrees that this would be the optimal thing. But, it would just be completely ridiculous to try and allocate delegates based upon the votes that took place. Where you aren't on the ballot and where you didn't campaign are just not valid. If you were working in a statistics lab of some sort (medical, mental, psychological, business, marketing) and you did a study similar to what happened here... and you tried to submit it to a peer reviewed journal...You'd get laughed at so hard you might just go to the top of the publisher's building and jump off.

I think Richardson would cost more votes than he'd bring. No whitey on the ticket would make a lot of rednecks nervous. Jim Webb would I think be a solid choice, I don't know enough about Sebelius' politics.

The stupid, bigot, white-trash vote isn't usually Democratic anyways, though I myself see Strickland as best.

Obama supporters looking upon Hillary with disdain, suggesting that she is a quasi Republican, yet embracing the idea that Republicans are attracted to their man. How twisted is that?

Wait. People who already didn't like Clinton amounts to Obama "swiftboating" her?

Obama came out attacking Bill Clinton's accomplishments, or at least trying to minimize them, and his supporters from the get go have called Hillary every dirty name under the sun.

Ok, so policy matter and, again, people who don't personally like Clinton. So, where's the "swiftboating"?

Obama attacking Hillary for her vote regarding Iraq, and her method of doing business. Successfully getting supporters to buy into the "she was for it before she was against it" Kerry like kind of mentalty.

An actual policy matter that is on record. So where's the "swiftboating"?

And we will never know what the "true" will of Democrats was in 2008, because Florida and Michigan don't count.

Not decided by Obama or Obama supporters. So, again, where's the "swiftboating"?

And how does any of this amount to the election being "stolen" from Clinton?

I believe that it is the only way to unite the party and heal the wounds.

Nope, there are other ways, such as putting a Clinton SUPPORTER on the ticket and having her either campaign for Obama or shut her proboscis.

(Snip)
And how does any of this amount to the election being "stolen" from Clinton?

Can't you see? They RAN A CANDIDATE AGAINST HER!!! :eek:

Can't you see? They RAN A CANDIDATE AGAINST HER!!! :eek:

:eek:

The nerve of the bastards!

I thought that is what you were suggesting. Sorry if I misunderstood.


The most recent poll (from RCP) shows that he is losing:

Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0
EPIC-MRA 04/03 - 04/08 600 LV 41 43 Obama +2.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 643 RV 45 46 Obama +1.0

This is where averaging is made of fail!!

And Clinton fares better by recent polling:

Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 44 44 Tie
EPIC-MRA 04/03 - 04/08 600 LV 46 37 McCain +9.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 644 RV 44 44 Tie


There has been a lot of cherrypicking going on here at NSG by everyone. I don't like any one particular polling firm. It appears that there are too many inconsistencies amongst the lot of them.

Oh no, the average thing sucks because it was done over the past 5 days instead of the one day of your particular choosing. I mean, why wouldn't you believe a poll that was put out today instead of one that averages over the past couple of days? You like whatever polling firm you think supports your cause. I can go back through all of these threads where you have been the BIGGEST offender in selective polling. I just pointed out above where your argument isn't made of fail... Why? Because it's made of a mixture of horseshit and wild speculation. TELL ME WHY, FROM A STATISTICAL PERSPECTIVE, IT IS BETTER TO SELECT ONLY THE MOST RECENT POLLS RATHER THAN AN RCP AVERAGE. I don't want to hear, "well I like it because it's newer." Let's try to remove emotion and speculation from it and just work on math. After all, math is the international language of logic and reasoning. And oh, you know who gets it right more than any poll? The odds makers in Vegas. Here's that they have to say...

As of May 23, 2008



2008 Presidential Odds
Name

Party

Title

Odds
Barack Obama
(D)

Illinois Senator

even
John McCain
(R)

Arizona Senator

3/2
Hillary Clinton
(D)

New York Senator

15/1 (http://www.aspiresite.com/americasline/newsite/PresidentialOdds2008.asp)

Read the last paragraph it says Obama gave to superdelegates too. 34 of them, totaling $288,000 Apparently he buys 'em on the cheap.
Actually, that's a bit of a misnomer. First, it takes place years before and it's part of a mechanism that every presidential candidate goes through, including Clinton. Candidates form their own kind of PAC to raise money and then spread that money around the party to assist in elections and the like. Obama raised more (surprise!) and was able to spread more around but actually "bought" less votes per dollar than Clinton, a reflection of her long term status within the party. What was done was normal mechanism, not donors calling organizations buying a super delegate vote.



The most recent poll (from RCP) shows that he is losing:

Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0
EPIC-MRA 04/03 - 04/08 600 LV 41 43 Obama +2.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 643 RV 45 46 Obama +1.0

This is where averaging is made of fail!!

And Clinton fares better by recent polling:

Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 44 44 Tie
EPIC-MRA 04/03 - 04/08 600 LV 46 37 McCain +9.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 644 RV 44 44 Tie
Don't tell me we're going to have to explain 'statistically insignificant' to you, too...




There has been a lot of cherrypicking going on here at NSG by everyone. I don't like any one particular polling firm. It appears that there are too many inconsistencies amongst the lot of them.
The problem is only 'liking them' when they have results you like. That's the kind of inconsistency that termites credibility.
Clinton on his ticket, is the only chance for him to win.
That ticket will be poison. The hardcore supporters who might actually follow through on their threats to take their ball and go home if their candidate doesn't get in by hook or by crook are also not going to accept a #2 slot-the Republicans will run the campaign against her suggesting (as Democrats do about Cheney) that it's a puppet presidency and use her to rally the faltering base (who can forget Celtlund's ridiculous "re-defeat communism" t-shirt? She'll bring her shattered good will that she squandered, the general distrust of her that she fostered, and the Clinton boogeyman that the Republicans need to activate their faltering base. Before her campaign, before her tantrums, she had the ability to overcome her negatives. Now it's not as likely. If there is anything that could sink Obama's chance, at this point, it's having her as his #2.

Clinton on his ticket, is the only chance for him to win.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to support that with some sort of statistical analysis? We've already shown that stats is a weak point for you, so please take your time.

No, it isn't. The people that supported her wouldn't support Obama due to him and the people that supported Obama wouldn't support Obama due to her.
It worked out well for Kennedy and Johnson in 1960:

David Shribman: Kennedy's choice of LBJ as vice president has relevance today (http://salemnews.com/puopinion/local_story_099215947.html)

This spring, as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama slug it out here in Pennsylvania, I've been wishing I'd have been in the room when a reluctant John F. Kennedy offered a reluctant Lyndon B. Johnson the vice presidential nomination in 1960.
I think most Democrats could get behind this!!

I guess that means that Obama is guilty of cheap "sleazy back door politics"? :)

You know the difference between a PAC and an individual donor in a legal perspective right? I take it not.

I believe that it is the only way to unite the party and heal the wounds.

Based on what evidence? "My opinion?"

Quite cheap, his fiscal restraint impresses me. Hillary tried to buy one for a million, Obama bought 34 for about 1/3 of that.

To be fair her rep was actually trying to buy 2. Obama's a better shopper.

It worked out well for Kennedy and Johnson in 1960:

David Shribman: Kennedy's choice of LBJ as vice president has relevance today (http://salemnews.com/puopinion/local_story_099215947.html)


I think most Democrats could get behind this!!

I personally hope LBJ is currently burning in hell for presiding over the US-supported coup in my country.

That aside, this isn't Kennedy and LBJ. LBJ was a slimeball, but he didn't try to change the rules within the party.

Only, y'know, in other countries.

Oh no, the average thing sucks because it was done over the past 5 days instead of the one day of your particular choosing. I mean, why wouldn't you believe a poll that was put out today instead of one that averages over the past couple of days? You like whatever polling firm you think supports your cause. I can go back through all of these threads where you have been the BIGGEST offender in selective polling. I just pointed out above where your argument isn't made of fail... Why? Because it's made of a mixture of horseshit and wild speculation. TELL ME WHY, FROM A STATISTICAL PERSPECTIVE, IT IS BETTER TO SELECT ONLY THE MOST RECENT POLLS RATHER THAN AN RCP AVERAGE. I don't want to hear, "well I like it because it's newer." Let's try to remove emotion and speculation from it and just work on math. After all, math is the international language of logic and reasoning.

In this specific case he has a kind of point, even if he failed to articulate it in a constructive manner, and instead made it broad and sweeping. The polls that are averaged are over a month old, and a lot happens in a month, but the recent poll is given as much weight as as a poll conducted in February, which is forever ago in political terms. So in this instance a critical reader can argue that the average is not as relevant as the most recent poll-but that's not to through the baby out with the bathwater and say all averaging sucks, it's just application of a critical eye that doesn't rely on "this poll agrees with me, ergo it's valid."

It worked out well for Kennedy and Johnson in 1960:

David Shribman: Kennedy's choice of LBJ as vice president has relevance today (http://salemnews.com/puopinion/local_story_099215947.html)


I think most Democrats could get behind this!!

Based on what? What, besides anectodal information do you have that supports your claim? Relating something that happened in 1960 is not exactly relevent. Also, could you bring up the negative numbers for Kennedy and Johnson and see if they relate, in any statistically meaningful way? If you do this I'd be happy to entertain the idea. The little engine that could method (I think I(she) can...I think I(she) can) is not worth squat.

It worked out well for Kennedy and Johnson in 1960:

David Shribman: Kennedy's choice of LBJ as vice president has relevance today (http://salemnews.com/puopinion/local_story_099215947.html)


I think most Democrats could get behind this!!

I doubt it. I'd lose tremendous respect for Obama for doing that. Have you noticed all these articles you're citing were written long before the Hillary meltdown of 08?

I thought that is what you were suggesting. Sorry if I misunderstood.


The most recent poll (from RCP) shows that he is losing:

Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0
EPIC-MRA 04/03 - 04/08 600 LV 41 43 Obama +2.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 643 RV 45 46 Obama +1.0

This is where averaging is made of fail!!

That is where you simply take it into account. Every one of those is within the MoE of one another. You really, really don't get statistics, do you?



And Clinton fares better by recent polling:

Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 44 44 Tie
EPIC-MRA 04/03 - 04/08 600 LV 46 37 McCain +9.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 644 RV 44 44 Tie


There has been a lot of cherrypicking going on here at NSG by everyone. I don't like any one particular polling firm. It appears that there are too many inconsistencies amongst the lot of them.

Hilarious. You're advocating cherrypicking right now. Considering MORE polls is advantageous. One poll of 500 people is not likely to give a good snapshot. Look at the overall performance of Clinton in MI, she isn't doing as well as Obama. Strangely, there might be some supporter of Obama that might be upset that she thinks only the votes of her supporters should count.

The only person who will use a site and then claim it's innaccurate when it disagrees with you is you. Most everyone else takes all of the evidence into account. It's easier for us, I'll admit. You don't have to make up evidence when reality favors you.

That is where you simply take it into account. Every one of those is within the MoE of one another. You really, really don't get statistics, do you?





Hilarious. You're advocating cherrypicking right now. Considering MORE polls is advantageous. One poll of 500 people is not likely to give a good snapshot. Look at the overall performance of Clinton in MI, she isn't doing as well as Obama. Strangely, there might be some supporter of Obama that might be upset that she thinks only the votes of her supporters should count.

The only person who will use a site and then claim it's innaccurate when it disagrees with you is you. Most everyone else takes all of the evidence into account. It's easier for us, I'll admit. You don't have to make up evidence when reality favors you.

Hell, there are probably some undecided or even Clinton supporters who are annoyed about that.

It worked out well for Kennedy and Johnson in 1960:

David Shribman: Kennedy's choice of LBJ as vice president has relevance today (http://salemnews.com/puopinion/local_story_099215947.html)


I think most Democrats could get behind this!!

Perhaps before you started claiming it's all a male conspiracy and that it's being stolen from her like it was Gore. How does putting as number 2 behind a man, the man who "stole" it from her, going to address that bell she can no longer unring?

Worse, by choosing her, it gives credibility to her claim. "She's good enough to be in the White House just not as President. That's a man's job."

I wonder if Hillary's goal after 2/5 was to actually prevent any woman from ever reaching the White House again. Think about it: She acts crazy and whiny all the time. Could it be that she's HOPING to reinstate actual sexism in the presidency so she can whine about it? You know, like Jeremiah "I won't allow my black former parishioner to be President so I can whine about racism" Wright.

In this specific case he has a kind of point, even if he failed to articulate it in a constructive manner, and instead made it broad and sweeping. The polls that are averaged are over a month old, and a lot happens in a month, but the recent poll is given as much weight as as a poll conducted in February, which is forever ago in political terms. So in this instance a critical reader can argue that the average is not as relevant as the most recent poll-but that's not to through the baby out with the bathwater and say all averaging sucks, it's just application of a critical eye that doesn't rely on "this poll agrees with me, ergo it's valid."

excellent point. It's a good thing he has you to help him.

Read the last paragraph it says Obama gave to superdelegates too. 34 of them, totaling $288,000 Apparently he buys 'em on the cheap.

's not really the same thing. His PAC gave to their campaigns - over the past three years (as in, we're talking about some contributions before he was even running for president). Both Clinton and Obama have PACs that regularly give to candidates in other races. Both have had some supers that their PACs supported endorse them (and some endorse the other candidate).

This, if it is true, was someone basically saying, "I'll give you this money to run your organization if you guys agree to vote the way I want."

Based on what evidence? "My opinion?"

We've already shown that stats is a weak point for you, so please take your time.

I just pointed out above where your argument isn't made of fail... Why? Because it's made of a mixture of horseshit and wild speculation. TELL ME WHY, FROM A STATISTICAL PERSPECTIVE, IT IS BETTER TO SELECT ONLY THE MOST RECENT POLLS RATHER THAN AN RCP AVERAGE. I don't want to hear, "well I like it because it's newer." Let's try to remove emotion and speculation from it and just work on math. After all, math is the international language of logic and reasoning.

Oh, I forgot, that's not the Hillary sycophant way.

Ah, good. You actually are making reasoned arguments here.

Wow, is ignorant shite like this that has made me stay away from this thread. You make sweeping generalizations that just make you look like a fool.

Stop projecting your feelings on ALL Obama supporters. Not only is it a bad generalization, it once again makes you just look like a crybaby.

The slate grey is where you say "how dare you not say glowing things about Bill Clinton. He was the greatest thing on Earth. Boo friggety hoo.

You can pick up your #ss now, I've just handed it to you.

Now I'm out of here. CH's arguments have become worse than ever and it's not good for my blood pressure or intelligence to continue. Don't bother responding CH, you're not worth listening to at this time. Hillary lost, get over it!
Perhaps you could try debating without resorting to trolling and flaming?

Perhaps you could try debating without resorting to trolling and flaming?

In the language of political correctness:

Pot, you're calling the kettle African-American.

Perhaps you could try debating without resorting to trolling and flaming?

You know, honestly, I was just about to welcome you back. I may not agree with you, but you ARE making arguments. Surely, you can admit that a lot of the nonsense that has gone on between you and some of the posters here, myself included, has been just that. He complimented you, and I think he was right to do so. So let's just keep to the discussion and not get into you claiming that the game you play JUST like everyone else isn't fair, huh?

So let's just keep to the discussion and not get into you claiming that the game you play JUST like everyone else isn't fair, huh?

I suddenly realize Obama could say these exact words to Clinton.

I don't really get it. Well, I do. People want something to be true so badly that they'll deny evidence staring them straight in the face if they have to. Someone's son comes home every day with bloodshot eyes, reaking of pot. "Oh, he's got allergies, and his friends must have been doing it...not him, of course!"

It's the same with Clinton having any shot at getting the nomination. The superdelegates have gone to Obama in droves the past few months. Whereas Clinton once lead Obama 2-1, she is now behind him by 30 delegates. Count Florida, don't count Florida (counting Clinton's votes in Michigan while ignoring the "uncommitted" votes and the fact that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot would be ridiculous) -- she lost the popular vote and the delegate count. The Republicans are levying attacks against Obama, and Obama only.

Hillary and friends: it's over. Go home.

Hillary and friends: it's over. Go home.

Actually, this is precisely what Hillary AND friends are threatening to do. Yours is not a solution.

Actually, this is precisely what Hillary AND friends are threatening to do. Yours is not a solution.

I'll rephrase for him, if not with his license but with apologies for doing so:

Hillary and friends: Accept the loss and get behind the one Democratic candidate that can stop the apocalypse Republicans are trying to cause.

I've read few Bushisms that compare to this -

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008/news/nationalnews/why_hill_wont_drop_out__bobby_kennedy_wa_112232.htm

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it.

Seriously, she's ready from day one but this far in the race, she doesn't realize she can't say she's hanging around in case Obama gets assassinated? And, yes, I know she's just kind of saying anything can happen, but seriously, how could she not know how stupid that was to say?

I'll rephrase for him, if not with his license but with apologies for doing so:

Hillary and friends: Accept the loss and get behind the one Democratic candidate that can stop the apocalypse Republicans are trying to cause.

Funny how Jocabia can take even the simplest of phrases and twist it so he can argue with it? Thanks for "clarifying."

Just as an aside....

This evening, my local news reported the results of the latest national Ohio poll. It had Clinton up over McCain by seven points, but had Obama behind McCain by four. I do not doubt for a moment that the Obama camp will contest these numbers somehow. It should be noted, however, that nobody's won the Presidency for the better part of a hundred years when their opponent won two of the Big Three (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio).

Just as an aside....

This evening, my local news reported the results of the latest national Ohio poll. It had Clinton up over McCain by seven points, but had Obama behind McCain by four. I do not doubt for a moment that the Obama camp will contest these numbers somehow. It should be noted, however, that nobody's won the Presidency for the better part of a hundred years when their opponent won two of the Big Three (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio).

Even assuming these numbers won't change once Hillary's finally out, this thing you said essentially boils down to appeal to tradition. One could just as easily say "no woman ever won the White House", "no black ever won the White House" or "no septuagenarian old coot ever won the White House", but one of these things will happen.

Just as an aside....

This evening, my local news reported the results of the latest national Ohio poll. It had Clinton up over McCain by seven points, but had Obama behind McCain by four. I do not doubt for a moment that the Obama camp will contest these numbers somehow. It should be noted, however, that nobody's won the Presidency for the better part of a hundred years when their opponent won two of the Big Three (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio).
And Dukakis was up by 12 in the spring...November is a long way away and Obama has proven again and again that he can close poll gaps-4% is marginal. Clinton, however, squandered a 20 point lead AND a sense of inevitability AND party good will.

Really, looking at the averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html), Obama is still in it (although SurveyUSA again blows the curve making the picture looking rosier than it might really be for both candidates...)

As far as the 'no left hander born on a Tuesday with more two sisters'-no president in history has won without being a white male. I guess that means we better find an old white dude or McCain's got it locked, eh?

As far as the 'no left hander born on a Tuesday with more two sisters'-no president in history has won without being a white male. I guess that means we better find an old white dude or McCain's got it locked, eh?

I like my way of saying it better. :D

Side note: Why do people keep making remarks about Obama getting shot? The NRA one, Clinton...

I like my way of saying it better. :D

Side note: Why do people keep making remarks about Obama getting shot? The NRA one, Clinton...

Hillary Clinton was not suggesting Obama would be shot. Her comment was, at worst, a poor choice of subject or words. The Obamites are just trying to make hay with it.

As for Ohio, say what you like. But every single poll I have ever seen shows him consistently losing this state, and after a while you gotta bow to the possibility. Ohio picks the winning presidential candidate 85% of the time in the general, and we picked Clinton in the primary. That SAYS something.

Hillary Clinton was not suggesting Obama would be shot. Her comment was, at worst, a poor choice of subject or words. The Obamites are just trying to make hay with it.

As for Ohio, say what you like. But every single poll I have ever seen shows him consistently losing this state, and after a while you gotta bow to the possibility. Ohio picks the winning presidential candidate 85% of the time in the general, and we picked Clinton in the primary. That SAYS something.

Dude, I just showed you a poll where he's winning...and 4% this far out, that's in play.

And your primary is so late that 85% of the time the winner is the only one left...

Hillary Clinton was not suggesting Obama would be shot. Her comment was, at worst, a poor choice of subject or words. The Obamites are just trying to make hay with it.

As for Ohio, say what you like. But every single poll I have ever seen shows him consistently losing this state, and after a while you gotta bow to the possibility. Ohio picks the winning presidential candidate 85% of the time in the general, and we picked Clinton in the primary. That SAYS something.

1- I'm pointing out a pattern here. And "I'm staying just in case he gets shot" doesn't sound any nicer than if Huckabee said he was "staying just in case McCain's melanoma gets in remission".

2- True, it says Ohio is very late in the election process.

3- When you play the victim essentially because a guy is running against you, you are liable to get some flack for raising the possibility of him getting shot.

I'd advocate giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt on that comment and interpret that as "anything could happen in the next few weeks" rather than "I'm waiting for him to be shot." We interpretted a few of Obama's comments as the intent rather than the letter and we should do the same for Clinton.

Dude, I just showed you a poll where he's winning...and 4% this far out, that's in play.

And your primary is so late that 85% of the time the winner is the only one left...

Nono, you guys are misunderstanding me. I am saying that in the general election (in fall), Ohio picks the winning candidate 85% of the time. I then stated that Ohio picked Clinton in the primary, suggesting that she's the better shot because we have a propensity for picking winners.

Funny how Jocabia can take even the simplest of phrases and twist it so he can argue with it? Thanks for "clarifying."

I wasn't twisting it. Your way of approaching the issue isn't helpful. It doesn't change with the reword. I used your words to demonstrate that she really does want to do that, even if you hadn't said what you did.

It's is over. But the "go home" part is the part you really need to rethink. You can play around the issue all you like, but you've said several different ways things that enforce exactly what's keeping her in the race.

3- When you play the victim essentially because a guy is running against you, you are liable to get some flack for raising the possibility of him getting shot.

I think it's the new campaign strategy: "Elect Hillary Clinton: she has more experiance dodging sniper fire!"

I think it's the new campaign strategy: "Elect Hillary Clinton: she has more experiance dodging sniper fire!"

CRITICAL HIT!!! :D

I'd advocate giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt on that comment and interpret that as "anything could happen in the next few weeks" rather than "I'm waiting for him to be shot." We interpretted a few of Obama's comments as the intent rather than the letter and we should do the same for Clinton.

I wasn't even complaining about her (very dumb) remark. I was pointing out a pattern.

Plus, as I said, Clinton and her supporters so far have been taking offense at the fact that Obama has a penis and is running against her. So, yeah, she lowered the "what's offensive" bar enough for the act of floating the possibility of him getting shot to be offensive.

Hillary Clinton was not suggesting Obama would be shot. Her comment was, at worst, a poor choice of subject or words. The Obamites are just trying to make hay with it.

She did not apologize for her utterly stupid statement. Obama has been threated. People have joked about him getting shot including one former candidate saying so. And when she "apologized" she didn't even acknowledge that what she said could have been miscontrued or that it was insensitive to Obama's family. In fact, the only people she said anything about offending was the Kennedy family. Clearly, how it affected Obama or his family was not of concern to her.

Here is her "apology":

Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.

Not one mention of how incredibly insensitive this was to the Obama family. Now, of course, she was just saying it's not that late and anything can happen. I was collossal stupidity, however.


As for Ohio, say what you like. But every single poll I have ever seen shows him consistently losing this state, and after a while you gotta bow to the possibility. Ohio picks the winning presidential candidate 85% of the time in the general, and we picked Clinton in the primary. That SAYS something.


Yes, it says you ended up voting for the person who won't be the Democratic candidate.

Dude, I just showed you a poll where he's winning...and 4% this far out, that's in play.

And your primary is so late that 85% of the time the winner is the only one left...

Ohio picked Kerry as the winner last year. How did his bid for the Presidency go?

Nono, you guys are misunderstanding me. I am saying that in the general election (in fall), Ohio picks the winning candidate 85% of the time. I then stated that Ohio picked Clinton in the primary, suggesting that she's the better shot because we have a propensity for picking winners.

Well, gosh, why do we even bother with the other 50+ primaries? Oh yeah, because baseball statistics are a shit way of running a campaign. It's what lost Guiliani the primary and it's what is losing Clinton the primary.

Ohio picked Kerry as the winner last year. How did his bid for the Presidency go?

Zing!

Nono, you guys are misunderstanding me. I am saying that in the general election (in fall), Ohio picks the winning candidate 85% of the time. I then stated that Ohio picked Clinton in the primary, suggesting that she's the better shot because we have a propensity for picking winners.

Not in primaries. In fact, about half the time you don't pick a primary winner that wins. In fact, in 1984, the person you picked for Dems didn't even end up on the ballot.

Ohio picked Kerry as the winner last year. How did his bid for the Presidency go?

I believe he stated the statistic was for the general, not the primaries. If I'm wrong, I deny everything.

I believe he stated the statistic was for the general, not the primaries. If I'm wrong, I deny everything.

But he's talking about the fact that Hillary won the primary is telling. I'm saying that winning the primary doesn't mean you'll win the state in the general.

But he's talking about the fact that Hillary won the primary is telling. I'm saying that winning the primary doesn't mean you'll win the state in the general.

My bad, then. Of course, it is a somewhat different situation since Kerry wasn't contested. However, the primary =/= general argument stands.

My bad, then. Of course, it is a somewhat different situation since Kerry wasn't contested. However, the primary =/= general argument stands.

They don't even always pick the winner of the candidacy actually.

They don't even always pick the winner of the candidacy actually.

If you check the website http://www.electoral-vote.com/ you will see a constant trend. Obama trails in Florida and Ohio and leads in Pennsylvania. Clinton leads in Ohio, Florida, AND Pennsylvania. You are assuming that Obama can close the distance with McCain in one or both of those states. Clinton doesn't have to gamble because she already commands leads in those states.

Obama might indeed close the distance with McCain if he becomes the nominee. But I don't particularly feel like taking the risk, and thus I fight on. If you want the nomination, you will have to beat Clinton utterly, because we're gonna hold the line for as long as possible. I'll fight until my political sword breaks.

If you check the website http://www.electoral-vote.com/ you will see a constant trend. Obama trails in Florida and Ohio and leads in Pennsylvania. Clinton leads in Ohio, Florida, AND Pennsylvania. You are assuming that Obama can close the distance with McCain in one or both of those states. Clinton doesn't have to gamble because she already commands leads in those states.

Obama might indeed close the distance with McCain if he becomes the nominee. But I don't particularly feel like taking the risk, and thus I fight on. If you want the nomination, you will have to beat Clinton utterly, because we're gonna hold the line for as long as possible. I'll fight until my political sword breaks.
Sheesh, talk about rhetoric...

How'd that 20point lead in the primaries a month before they started work out for her?

I mean, look at the maps from this century. There are tons (by mass) of states that have a history of choosing the winner with great accuracy. There is no reason to suggest that we should care about any of their primary results.

If you check the website http://www.electoral-vote.com/ you will see a constant trend. Obama trails in Florida and Ohio and leads in Pennsylvania. Clinton leads in Ohio, Florida, AND Pennsylvania. You are assuming that Obama can close the distance with McCain in one or both of those states. Clinton doesn't have to gamble because she already commands leads in those states.

Obama might indeed close the distance with McCain if he becomes the nominee. But I don't particularly feel like taking the risk, and thus I fight on. If you want the nomination, you will have to beat Clinton utterly, because we're gonna hold the line for as long as possible. I'll fight until my political sword breaks.

It's broken. She lost. She's not GOING to lose or might lose. She lost. Even if she manages to change the rules SHE'S still not in the fight. No one believes she's in it. Not her supporters. Not the Republicans. Not even you. You don't believe she's got ANY shot at being the candidate and you know it.

I'm curious. When you're losing with pledged delegates AND you're losing with supers and they are clearly going steadily to Obama, why do you think making the same argument you've made since Feb 5 is going to change that trend? You'd think she'd try something new, because there really is no chance for her and all of these arguments have ALREADY failed.

They may change the rules mid-race, but they aren't going to change the winner.

If you check the website http://www.electoral-vote.com/ you will see a constant trend. Obama trails in Florida and Ohio and leads in Pennsylvania. Clinton leads in Ohio, Florida, AND Pennsylvania. You are assuming that Obama can close the distance with McCain in one or both of those states. Clinton doesn't have to gamble because she already commands leads in those states.

Obama might indeed close the distance with McCain if he becomes the nominee. But I don't particularly feel like taking the risk, and thus I fight on. If you want the nomination, you will have to beat Clinton utterly, because we're gonna hold the line for as long as possible. I'll fight until my political sword breaks.

According to RCP the only one of the three where Clinton wins and Obama doesn't is Flordia. That's 27 electoral votes: let's see:

Iowa: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 04/11 - 05/13 -- 41.7 47.3 Obama +5.6
Rasmussen 05/13 - 05/13 500 LV 42 44 Obama +2.0
Research 2000 04/21 - 04/23 600 LV 41 49 Obama +8.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 553 RV 42 49 Obama +7.0
More Polling Data | News
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Spread
RCP Average 04/11 - 05/13 -- 45.0 42.3 McCain +2.7
Rasmussen 05/13 - 05/13 500 LV 45 42 McCain +3.0
Research 2000 04/21 - 04/23 600 LV 42 43 Clinton +1.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 553 48 42 McCain +6.0

Seven here

Colorado: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
Rasmussen 05/19 - 05/19 500 LV 42 48 Obama +6.0
Rasmussen 04/16 - 04/16 500 LV 43 46 Obama +3.0
Rasmussen 03/17 - 03/17 500 LV 46 46 Tie
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 630 RV 41 50 Obama +9.0
Rasmussen 02/11 - 02/11 500 LV 39 46 Obama +7.0
More Polling Data | News
Colorado: McCain vs. Clinton
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Spread
Rasmussen 05/19 - 05/19 500 LV 47 44 McCain +3.0
Rasmussen 04/16 - 04/16 500 LV 50 36 McCain +14.0
Rasmussen 03/17 - 03/17 500 LV 52 38 McCain +14.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 631 RV 48 42 McCain +6.0
Rasmussen 02/11 - 02/11 500 LV 49 35 McCain +14.0

Nine electoral votes here

Oregon: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 02/07 - 05/07 -- 49.7 39.3 Obama +10.4
Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 52 38 Obama +14.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 543 RV 51 42 Obama +9.0
Riley Research 02/07 - 02/18 401 LV 46 38 Obama +8.0
More Polling Data | News
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Spread
RCP Average 02/07 - 05/07 -- 44.0 43.7 McCain +0.3
Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 40 46 Clinton +6.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 543 RV 46 47 Clinton +1.0
Riley Research 02/07 - 02/18 401 LV 46 38 McCain +8.0

Seven here

Wisconsin: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 04/11 - 05/05 -- 44.7 46.3 Obama +1.6
Rasmussen 05/05 - 05/05 500 LV 47 43 McCain +4.0
U. of WI 04/15 - 04/24 345 LV 43 47 Obama +4.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 541 RV 44 49 Obama +5.0
More Polling Data | News
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Clinton
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Spread
RCP Average 04/11 - 05/05 -- 46.7 43.3 McCain +3.4
Rasmussen 05/05 - 05/05 500 LV 47 43 McCain +4.0
U. of WI 04/15 - 04/24 345 LV 47 41 McCain +6.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 541 RV 46 46 Tie

Ten here

7+7+9+10= 33. Makes up for Florida.

He's also far closer in Virginia

Virginia: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 05/08 - 05/18 -- 44.3 43.0 McCain +1.3
SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 600 RV 42 49 Obama +7.0
VCU 05/12 - 05/18 852 RV 44 36 McCain +8.0
Rasmussen 05/08 - 05/08 500 LV 47 44 McCain +3.0
More Polling Data | News
Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Spread
RCP Average 04/11 - 05/18 -- 49.7 39.3 McCain +10.4
VCU 05/12 - 05/18 852 RV 47 38 McCain +9.0
Rasmussen 05/08 - 05/08 500 LV 47 41 McCain +6.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 515 RV 55 39 McCain +16.0

Which is 13.

Oh, and he's actually beting Clinton in NH too:

New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 02/26 - 05/21 -- 45.3 45.7 Obama +0.4
Rasmussen 05/21 - 05/21 500 LV 43 48 Obama +5.0
University of New Hampshire 04/25 - 04/30 456 LV 49 43 McCain +6.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 637 RV 44 46 Obama +2.0
More Polling Data | News
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton
Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Clinton (D) Spread
RCP Average 02/26 - 05/21 -- 45.7 45.3 McCain +0.4
Rasmussen 05/21 - 05/21 500 LV 41 51 Clinton +10.0
University of New Hampshire 04/25 - 04/30 456 LV 47 44 McCain +3.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 637 RV 49 41 McCain +8.0

For four more. Make that 37 (4 in a virtual dead heat, and some others are close, to be fair) for Obama but not Clinton with 13 in a ~1-1.5 for McCain over Obama in Virginia (but McCain has like a 10 point lead over Clinton in Virginia) based on RCP's current polls

Sheesh, talk about rhetoric...

How'd that 20point lead in the primaries a month before they started work out for her?

That was before Obama's name became a household term. Furthermore, I will point out that Clinton won all three states very handily. In addition, the polls show her with leads in the states of West Virginia, Michigan, Missouri, and Arkansas, and Nevada.....all states which she won in the primary, and states that Obama loses in the general matchup projection. They are worth 44 electoral votes.

The fact is, all of the Obama people on here are arguing that their electoral and popular vote count will go up once Clinton exits the race. Clinton doesn't have to worry as much because she's already up on McCain in the general.

My question then, to the Obamites is this: What happens if Clinton exits the race, and you don't get enough of a bump to close with McCain in those swing states?

Obama might indeed close the distance with McCain if he becomes the nominee. But I don't particularly feel like taking the risk, and thus I fight on. If you want the nomination, you will have to beat Clinton utterly, because we're gonna hold the line for as long as possible. I'll fight until my political sword breaks.

Or until she tarnishes Obama long enough that neither gets elected, innit?

As for using a knight metaphor:

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail017.jpg

Sheesh, talk about rhetoric...

How'd that 20point lead in the primaries a month before they started work out for her?

Well, the funny part is that site is only using the most recent poll. Obama has steadily beat Hillary in North Carolin v McCain. Instead of presenting a realistic picture it takes one poll and labels it a state where she is smoking Obama.

That was before Obama's name became a household term. Furthermore, I will point out that Clinton won all three states very handily. In addition, the polls show her with leads in the states of West Virginia, Michigan, Missouri, and Arkansas, and Nevada.....all states which she won in the primary, and states that Obama loses in the general matchup projection. They are worth 44 electoral votes.

She had the 20 point lead into Feb 5, I believe. He was a household name by then.


SurveyUSA 03/08 - 03/10 608 LV 55 36 Clinton +19.0
Susquehanna 03/05 - 03/10 500 LV 45 31 Clinton +14.0
Strategic Vision (R) 03/07 - 03/09 600 LV 56 38 Clinton +18.0
Rasmussen 03/05 - 03/05 690 LV 52 37 Clinton +15.0
Rasmussen 02/26 - 02/26 820 LV 46 42 Clinton +4.0
Quinnipiac 02/21 - 02/25 506 LV 49 43 Clinton +6.0
Franklin & Marshall 02/13 - 02/18 303 RV 44 32 Clinton +12.0
Morning Call 02/09 - 02/17 302 LV 45 31 Clinton +14.0
Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 577 LV 52 36 Clinton +16.0
Keystone Poll 01/08 - 01/14 286 RV 40 20 Clinton +20.0
Quinnipiac 11/26 - 12/03 462 RV 43 15 Clinton +28.0
Quinnipiac 10/31 - 11/05 443 RV 48 15 Clinton +33.0
Quinnipiac 10/01 - 10/08 393 RV 41 14 Clinton +27.0
Strategic Vision (R) 09/28 - 09/30 LV 42 24 Clinton +18.0
Keystone Poll 08/24 - 09/02 209 RV 38 21 Clinton +17.0
Quinnipiac 08/14 - 08/20 524 RV 42 12 Clinton +30.0
Quinnipiac 07/30 - 08/06 419 RV 35 19 Clinton +16.0
Strategic Vision (R) 07/06 - 07/08 LV 36 25 Clinton +11.0
Quinnipiac 06/18 - 06/25 444 RV 32 18 Clinton +14.0
Keystone Poll 05/29 - 06/07 200 RV 40 18 Clinton +22.0
Quinnipiac 05/22 - 05/28 585 RV 33 13 Clinton +20.0
Quinnipiac 04/17 - 04/24 425 RV 36 14 Clinton +22.0
Strategic Vision (R) 04/13 - 04/15 LV 33 23 Clinton +10.0
Quinnipiac 03/19 - 03/25 506 RV 36 17 Clinton +19.0
Strategic Vision (R) 03/16 - 03/18 LV 35 25 Clinton +10.0
Quinnipiac 02/25 - 03/04 488 RV 29 18 Clinton +11.0
Quinnipiac 02/01 - 02/05 442 RV 37 11 Clinton +26.0
American Res. Group 01/04 - 01/08 600 LV 32 13 Clinton +19.0


"They are worth 44 electoral votes."

I just showed 50 for Obama but not Clinton, if he can gain about 2% in Virginia.

The fact is, all of the Obama people on here are arguing that their electoral and popular vote count will go up once Clinton exits the race. Clinton doesn't have to worry as much because she's already up on McCain in the general.

My question then, to the Obamites is this: What happens if Clinton exits the race, and you don't get enough of a bump to close with McCain in those swing states?

Obama has fared better than Clinton against McCain since the beginning of the race.

Or until she tarnishes Obama long enough that neither gets elected, innit?

As for using a knight metaphor:

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail017.jpg

He's not going to be elected regardless. Furthermore, I resent the fact that you constantly seem to be in my face. Observe that I am not a Republican, and therefore deserving of a little less rancor on your part.

Even if you carry Virginia away from the Republicans, it doesn't compensate for losses in Ohio and Florida. Clinton can WIN in both those states, and Barack Obama can't.

The fact is, all of the Obama people on here are arguing that their electoral and popular vote count will go up once Clinton exits the race. Clinton doesn't have to worry as much because she's already up on McCain in the general.

My question then, to the Obamites is this: What happens if Clinton exits the race, and you don't get enough of a bump to close with McCain in those swing states?

Obama is also up on McCain in the general. In fact, he's also up on Hillary unless you use some rather spurious ways of analyzing. Obama is more popular than Hillary. That's today. That's yesterday. That's the day before. He's more popular than McCain. We're talking a tiny bit. We're talking about a LOT. When's the last time a Presidential candidate won by 5% of the popular vote and lost the election. Hillary is running about even with McCain in popular vote. In the past two elections, Gore and Kerry ended up VERY close to Bush in popular vote. How did that work out for them?

More importantly, Obama doesn't need a bump in the states you're pointing to. See, Barr is entering the race. If he is even with McCain in a two person matchup and Barr takes, let's be conservative, oh, 2%. What then?

Obama has fared better than Clinton against McCain since the beginning of the race.

Obama faired better in the PRIMARY. That ain't the same as the general. The fact is I keep looking at the polls and see two trends:

-Obama has more "Strong Democrat" states than Clinton.
-Clinton has a LOT more "Leans Democrat" states than Obama.

When you count up all of the leaners, Clinton leads in states totaling roughly 300 electoral votes. Obama leads in states totaling approximately 240. There's a lot more tossup states in Obama V McCain, but that only gives you a coin's flip chance.

You need 270 to win.

He's not going to be elected regardless. Furthermore, I resent the fact that you constantly seem to be in my face. Observe that I am not a Republican, and therefore deserving of a little less rancor on your part.

Even if you carry Virginia away from the Republicans, it doesn't compensate for losses in Ohio and Florida. Clinton can WIN in both those states, and Barack Obama can't.

Obama's up in Ohio according to the current RCP polls. The other states that go for Obama-but-not-Clinton more than make up for Florida.

Obama's up in Ohio according to the current RCP polls. The other states that go for Obama-but-not-Clinton more than make up for Florida.

That is incorrect. I LIVE in Ohio and I see the polls every day in the paper, and they consistently show him down in Ohio. So does electoral vote.com.

He's not going to be elected regardless. Furthermore, I resent the fact that you constantly seem to be in my face. Observe that I am not a Republican, and therefore deserving of a little less rancor on your part.

Even if you carry Virginia away from the Republicans, it doesn't compensate for losses in Ohio and Florida. Clinton can WIN in both those states, and Barack Obama can't.

Obama adds Virginia, WI, IA, CO among others. He redraws the map. You want to focus on those three states because it's not in your interest to take a full look at the map. If you stop looking at the cases where states are within the MoE, then you'll find Obama's in the better position.

Obama faired better in the PRIMARY. That ain't the same as the general. The fact is I keep looking at the polls and see two trends:

-Obama has more "Strong Democrat" states than Clinton.
-Clinton has a LOT more "Leans Democrat" states than Obama.

When you count up all of the leaners, Clinton leads in states totaling roughly 300 electoral votes. Obama leads in states totaling approximately 240. There's a lot more tossup states in Obama V McCain, but that only gives you a coin's flip chance.

You need 270 to win.

LEANS mean that the polls are within the margin of error. They are statistically irrelevant.

Meanwhile, we already know which one of them is good at running a strong campaign, which one of them can actually hold a lead or close in with states they are behind. That's Obama.

That is incorrect. I LIVE in Ohio and I see the polls every day in the paper, and they consistently show him down in Ohio. So does electoral vote.com.

RCP Average 05/13 - 05/20 -- 42.7 44.0 Obama +1.3
SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 600 RV 39 48 Obama +9.0
Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1244 RV 44 40 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/15 - 05/15 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0

That is incorrect. I LIVE in Ohio and I see the polls every day in the paper, and they consistently show him down in Ohio. So does electoral vote.com.

Where you live doesn't add credibilty to your claims. The polls say what they say. We can all see them.

They show Ohio as a tossup. Which considering that Obama is being attacked from two sides and neither McCain nor Clinton are experiencing that is damn good.

I think I see what your issue is. You're starting to realize that Obama is redrawing the map. In a Clinton campaign, Ohio will be all important. In Obama's campaign every state will be equally important. They horror. The horror.

He's not going to be elected regardless. Furthermore, I resent the fact that you constantly seem to be in my face. Observe that I am not a Republican, and therefore deserving of a little less rancor on your part.

Even if you carry Virginia away from the Republicans, it doesn't compensate for losses in Ohio and Florida. Clinton can WIN in both those states, and Barack Obama can't.

1- I WILL call you on the tripe you spout because you are spouting crap. Your resentment means NOTHING to me, and, given your tactics of going "why do you hate me" whenever I dare to question you, tactics which got my nation deleted in my birthday no less, you are acting JUST LIKE a Republican. I don't care about your feelings, and, as long as I don't flame you, I don't have to. If your feelings are hurt by the fact that people disagree with you, I do NOT have to respect this, though it makes your reasons for siding with Clinton clearer.

2- Prove it. Prove that he can't. He's in a statistical dead heat with McCain in BOTH states, with Clinton attacking him. The burden of proof is on YOU.

This is the website I use to track the poll comparisons:

http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_clinton/
http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

1- I WILL call you on the tripe you spout because you are spouting crap. Your resentment means NOTHING to me, and, given your tactics of going "why do you hate me" whenever I dare to question you, tactics which got my nation deleted in my birthday no less, you are acting JUST LIKE a Republican. I don't care about your feelings, and, as long as I don't flame you, I don't have to.

2- Prove it. Prove that he can't. He's in a statistical dead heat with McCain in BOTH states, with Clinton attacking him. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Everything I "spout" is backed by the poll pages I have repeatedly cited on this page. Things have evened up a little since the last refresh, but Clinton still leads Obama in projected electoral votes.

According to these polls, if the election were held today, Clinton could lock down 239 Electoral Votes. Obama would bring down 208. She has an edge on him. She has to win fewer states than he does in order to win the presidency. Obama needs several things to go right for him to win.

Everything I "spout" is backed by the poll pages I have repeatedly cited on this page. Things have evened up a little since the last refresh, but Clinton still leads Obama in projected electoral votes.

According to these polls, if the election were held today, Clinton could lock down 239 Electoral Votes. Obama would bring down 208. She has an edge on him. She has to win fewer states than he does in order to win the presidency. Obama needs several things to go right for him to win.

Clinton needs about half of the conservative voters, that would not bother voting were the opponent Obama, to have diarrhea in 11/4. So, yeah.

Everything I "spout" is backed by the poll pages I have repeatedly cited on this page. Things have evened up a little since the last refresh, but Clinton still leads Obama in projected electoral votes.

According to these polls, if the election were held today, Clinton could lock down 239 Electoral Votes. Obama would bring down 208. She has an edge on him. She has to win fewer states than he does in order to win the presidency. Obama needs several things to go right for him to win.

Um, what? As you said, the polls that aren't leaning (which is statistically irrelevent) favor Obama. Every state that leans one way or the other favors Obama.

Meanwhile, can you guess what happens when the Republicans bash Obama and praise Hillary while Hillary also bashes Obama, while no one bashes Hillary because she's not actually got a chance at being in the general?

See, it tends to go differently when the Republican attack machine focuses on you, which it already has with Obama. Obama is already beginning in the general election. Hillary isn't the focus anymore and she has a bump because of it.

This is the website I use to track the poll comparisons:

http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_clinton/
http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

That site shows Massachusetts being a "swing" state for Obama. Can we call the bull here? Massachusetts practically bans red pixels being used to cover it on a map. All of of Reps, Senators, and like 85+% of the legislature are of the Democratic party. We were the only state (plus DC) that voted for McGovern over Nixon, for chrissake. We were the first to have legalized gay marriage. Obama will not lose MA.

Oh, and missed Iowa and Michagin (where he is up by like 11% over McCain to Clinton's 5% lead over McCain) gives Clinton Nh as a "swing" while for Obama it's slightly repub (they're .8% points apart in NH with Obama winning narrowly and Clinton losing narrowly by RCP.) Gives Virginia as "slightly repub" where it should be swing... etc.

And even by the site Obama's ground campaign could easily sweep most of the "swings" and probably a few of the "leaning" repubs.

That site shows Massachusetts being a "swing" state for Obama. Can we call the bull here?

I usually cross-reference what I see on this site to electoral votes.com so that I have a better idea of what's going on.

I usually cross-reference what I see on this site to electoral votes.com so that I have a better idea of what's going on.

Then why don't you?

That site shows Massachusetts being a "swing" state for Obama. Can we call the bull here? Massachusetts practically bans red pixels being used to cover it on a map. All of of Reps, Senators, and like 85+% of the legislature are of the Democratic party. We were the only (I believe) state (plus DC) that voted for McGovern over Reagan, for chrissake. Obama will not lose MA.

Oh, and missed Iowa and Michagin (where he is up by like 11% over McCain to Clinton's 5% lead over McCain) gives Clinton Nh as a "swing" while for Obama it's slightly repub (they're .8% points apart in NH with Obama winning narrowly and Clinton losing narrowly by RCP.) Gives Virginia as "slightly repub" where it should be swing... etc.

And even by the site Obama's ground campaign could easily sweep most of the "swings" and probably a few of the "leaning" repubs.

Not to mention it's got CA only leaning Dem. Yeah, MA and CA are going red this year. Sure. By the way, my name is John McCain and I approve of this message.

Not to sound tart, but I think certain people in the Obama camp see only what they wish to see. I guess we'll find out this November who had a better grip on reality.

Not to sound tart, but I think certain people in the Obama camp see only what they wish to see. I guess we'll find out this November who had a better grip on reality.

We're analyzing the numbers. You're choosing an ad hominem rather than making an argument.

The fact is your own site puts TEXAS as state McCain is weak in against Obama. Think about it. That's 34 electoral votes. Could he win Texas? Probably not. Your site is full of crap. However, does that mean that McCain has to defend Texas? Probably. McCain is going to have to battle to try and keep the map from looking like the reverse of 1984. According to your own site he can only feel comfortable as already having 102 EVs. Seriously, that's gotta hurt. And when you're facing an opponent who has more money, is more popular and has a grassroots organization that turn an inevitable win into an inevitable loss, I'm going to have to say that McCain is terrified of Obama.

Just an easy question? Let's say I own a baseball team. I need a new manager. I have two people to choose to try and lead my team to victory. One of them was the manager of a team that was the absolute favorite. It was a team that had every reason to win the penant. The other manager was the manager who DID win the penant against that team. Which one should I choose? Not too tough of a choice is it?

Hillary took a winning team and turned it into a losing team. Obama won against impossible odds. So, yes, with that evidence in hand, I think Obama might be able to pull of a victory in a contest where he starts out favored.

Not to sound tart, but I think certain people in the Obama camp see only what they wish to see.

Coming from you, that's really funny.

Not to sound tart, but I think certain people in the Obama camp see only what they wish to see. I guess we'll find out this November who had a better grip on reality.


Quoted for great truth! ^_^

Given that all Obama had to do to draw applause from his supporters was to blow his nose in public I am becoming more and more convinced that Obama mania is nothing more than the mirror image of Bush Derangement Syndrome. In both cases it's nothing more than a fanboy-like obssession with personalities to the exclusion of all else. :p

Mind you, fanboys have more sense than political activists in *one* regard. They, at least, require more of their idoru than merely the blow of a nose before they applaud. ;)

Quoted for great truth! ^_^

Given that all Obama had to do to draw applause from his supporters was to blow his nose in public I am becoming more and more convinced that Obama mania is nothing more than the mirror image of Bush Derangement Syndrome. In both cases it's nothing more than a fanboy-like obssession with personalities to the exclusion of all else. :p

Mind you, fanboys have more sense than political activists in *one* regard. They, at least, require more of their idoru than merely the blow of a nose before they applaud. ;)

Wow. Congradulations, you just made a sweeping generalization of all Obama supporters due to the actions of a portion of one crowd at one event that may or may not have been in jest. You win, eh?

Not to sound tart, but I think certain people in the Obama camp see only what they wish to see. I guess we'll find out this November who had a better grip on reality.

Two things: Firstly, correct me if I'm wrong, but are actually supporting McCain when Obama wins the nomination?

And secondly, you do realize that even if Obama losy in November it does not prove that Clinton would have done better?

That site shows Massachusetts being a "swing" state for Obama. Can we call the bull here? Massachusetts practically bans red pixels being used to cover it on a map. All of of Reps, Senators, and like 85+% of the legislature are of the Democratic party. We were the only state (plus DC) that voted for McGovern over Reagan, for chrissake. We were the first to have legalized gay marriage. Obama will not lose MA.
.


McGovern ran against Nixon. Mondale ran against Reagan (and only won DC and his home state of MN).

McGovern ran against Nixon. Mondale ran against Reagan (and only won DC and his home state of MN).

D'oh. Knew there was something wrong.

[goes to edit]

LEANS mean that the polls are within the margin of error. They are statistically irrelevant.

Meanwhile, we already know which one of them is good at running a strong campaign, which one of them can actually hold a lead or close in with states they are behind. That's Obama.

Have you noticed that neither Shal or CH are very good when it comes to statistical analysis? Anything withing the MOE is a coin flip. Up 3 points and there's a +/- 3 MOE, no statistically significant edge. Now, I read an article today where Hillary justified her staying in the race by saying "Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.

Even if she didn't mean to allude to an assassination of Senator Obama, this is still an incredibly stupid thing to say. I don't care if she stays in the race, I'd just like her to start behaving like a humbled opponent. This hurts Hillary to admit defeat. She's not the kind of person who is used to not getting her way. At some point in time she will have to face the cold reality that Obama will hit the 2025+ mark in the near future and then she can call it quits, we hope. I mean, after the other person has reached the predefined "nomination threshold" you have to quit right? At that point in time I'll truly be pissed and want her out. At that point in time she'd just be all sour grapes. There has to be a way to allow her to admit defeat gracefully. She clearly is someone that doesn't like to lose. I'm the same way, just not a woman. But there comes a time when she will have to realize she defeated and bow out with dignity. That's my hope for a best case scenario. No VP for her though.

(Snip.) No VP for her though.

Fully agree, and her fault on the "no VP" part.

Fewer Democrats Want Hillary to Drop Out (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/fewer_democrats_want_hillary_to_drop_out)

As Barack Obama inches closer to formally wrapping up the Democratic Presidential Nomination, the number of Democrats who want Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race has declined. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 32% of Democrats now think Clinton should withdraw from the race. That’s down from 38% who wanted her to exit the race just ten days ago. A month ago, 34% thought she should leave the race.
Very interesting.

Even more interesting:

Overall, Democrats are evenly divided as to which candidate would be a better general election candidate against John McCain. Forty-six percent (46%) view Clinton as the stronger candidate while 44% say Obama will do better.

Hang on to your hats:

The national telephone survey also found that 81% of all Democrats now believe it is at least somewhat likely the Democratic nomination will remain unresolved until the Democratic convention in August. Forty-eight percent (48%) of all Democrats believe that a decision at the convention is Very Likely. That’s up seven points since the previous survey

And finally....take heed Obama supporters:

However, the strong and committed support for Clinton means that Obama is now entering the most perilous phase of his candidacy. The way in which he resolves the challenge with Clinton could determine who wins in November.
It should be extremely interesting to see how Obama resolves this one.

CH et al: please put further number-crunching here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554465). (That's where the electoral map disappeared to, CH.)

Obama adds Virginia, WI, IA, CO among others. He redraws the map. You want to focus on those three states because it's not in your interest to take a full look at the map. If you stop looking at the cases where states are within the MoE, then you'll find Obama's in the better position.
Where in the recent head to head polls is Obama redrawing the map?

He isn't adding Virginia yet (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/virginia.html). If he wins WI, he would just be holding it. Kerry only lost IA by 5,000 votes, so an Obama win wouldn't be a significant gain, especially if he loses Michigan. So if you take Virginia out of your equation, and Obama holds Wisconsin, and wins Iowa and Colorado yet loses Michigan, Obama's net result would be -1.

CH et al: please put further number-crunching here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554465). (That's where the electoral map disappeared to, CH.)
The problem with that is that it falls by the way side when there is a lull in the primaries/caucuses.

Where in the recent head to head polls is Obama redrawing the map?

He isn't adding Virginia yet (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/virginia.html). If he wins WI, he would just be holding it. Kerry only lost IA by 5,000 votes, so an Obama win wouldn't be a significant gain, especially if he loses Michigan. So if you take Virginia out of your equation, and Obama holds Wisconsin, and wins Iowa and Colorado yet loses Michigan, Obama's net result would be -1.

Again, this ignores one concept you absolutely refuse to address. Obama is running two races right now. McCain is facing Obama and so is Clinton. Clinton with no one who is actually focusing on her at all STILL isn't running well. McCain against a candidate who is being torn apart by members of his own party STILL isn't running well. Obama is running even with both when he is the ONLY candidate that has both parties attacking him. I'll wait for you to address this.

Come on. I want to hear how McCain is equally attacking Clinton. Face it. I want you to honestly assess Clinton's chances at winning the nomination. Assign a percetage. How likely is it?

It is bad to admit defeat before you defeated. No one does that in sport!

If Hillary quits it looks like a fix. Not good for Obama really.

It is bad to admit defeat before you defeated. No one does that in sport!

If Hillary quits it looks like a fix. Not good for Obama really.

Really? Never seen a guy who can't win lay down his king? That's called good sportsmanship. Every chessmaster would simply snort and show disdain to a play not doing so. Tradition for elections is exactly the same. People lay down their kings when the race has been decided. And it has. Really, the only way she wins is if Obama gets assassinated. She didn't intend to say that, but it's a fact.

Jocabia you are talking about chess. Right? That is not the same as most sport because random cant happen.

6-0 6-0 5-0 game point. Losing player can still win. Not over.

Jocabia, I don't know I admit. It seems wrong to quit ever, to me.

Al Gore did what you say, and we got Bush. Was that right?

Jocabia you are talking about chess. Right? That is not the same as most sport because random cant happen.

6-0 6-0 5-0 game point. Losing player can still win. Not over.

It's statistically impossible for Hillary to win at this point. Obama needs a meager 25% of the remaining delegates to seal the nomination. Hillary needs 150% or better.

But what about random? Obama is caught in mens having gay sex, 150% for Clinton is possible.

Not the same as Obama is assasinated. That is wrong I admit.

Jocabia, I don't know I admit. It seems wrong to quit ever, to me.

Al Gore did what you say, and we got Bush. Was that right?
Except that's not what happened. Al Gore quit because he couldn't win. There was no more fight to fight.

I dont want to argue because they keep moving what I say, its not fair.

You know suddenly Hillary's earlier comments comparing the election to Zimbabwe make much more sense. In Zimbabwe if you annoy the man who wants to remain president you end up dead. Hillary came just shy of calling for Obama's assassination.

Where in the recent head to head polls is Obama redrawing the map?

He isn't adding Virginia yet (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/virginia.html). If he wins WI, he would just be holding it. Kerry only lost IA by 5,000 votes, so an Obama win wouldn't be a significant gain, especially if he loses Michigan. So if you take Virginia out of your equation, and Obama holds Wisconsin, and wins Iowa and Colorado yet loses Michigan, Obama's net result would be -1.

He's doing better in Michagin than Clinton. Seems she has trouble winning when her opponenet's name is on the ballot.

If anything happens to BHO, Hillary "Vince Foster commited suicide, wink wink, nudge, nudge" Clinton is now suspect number one in my books...

If anything happens to BHO, Hillary "Vince Foster commited suicide, wink wink, nudge, nudge" Clinton is now suspect number one in my books...

I think she called them off after making her remarks. It'd be somewhat too suspicious to get it done now...

I think she called them off after making her remarks. It'd be somewhat too suspicious to get it done now...

I'm not convinced. She got away with Foster....

I'll leave ya'll with the fine words of Mr. Olbermann:

Since those awful words in Sioux Falls, and after the condescending, buck-passing statement from her spokesperson, Senator Clinton has made something akin to an apology, without any evident recognition of the true trauma she has inflicted.

"I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged California in June in 1992 and 1968," she said in Brandon, South Dakota. "I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact.

"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy. I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive, I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

"My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family. Thanks. Not a word about the inappropriateness of referencing assassination.

Not a word about the inappropriateness of implying - whether it was intended or not - that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible.

Not a word about Senator Obama.

Not a word about Senator McCain.

Not: I'm sorry...

Not: I apologize...

Not: I blew it...

Not: please forgive me.

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often...

And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad...

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 a.m. Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"...

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket's expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

"You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

We cannot forgive you this -- not because it is crass and low and unfeeling and brutal.

This is unforgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.

Garfield.

McKinley.

Kennedy.

Martin Luther King.

Robert Kennedy.

And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw, Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately - to still not appreciate tonight - just what you have done... is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.

This, Senator, is too much.

Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.

Good night and good luck.
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/page/2/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/page/3/

This isn't a poll, I hope links are fine remaining here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603432.html

Nice article on the whole entitlement/victim thing Clinton and her supporters have.

It is bad to admit defeat before you defeated. No one does that in sport!

the clock doesn't have to run out in order for you to be defeated

This isn't a poll, I hope links are fine remaining here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603432.html

Nice article on the whole entitlement/victim thing Clinton and her supporters have.

Excellent op-ed.

This was worth quoting - Shal "my candidate was treated unfairly because my candidate didn't win" rirorchia, pay attention!

This is what equality looks like -- life as an equal-opportunity dispenser of disappointments.

When, in 1975, Frank Robinson became major league baseball's first African American manager, with the Cleveland Indians, that was an important milestone. But an even more important one came two years later, when the Indians fired him. That was real equality: Losing one's job is part of the job description of major league managers, because sacking the manager is one of the few changes a floundering team can make immediately. So, in a sense, Robinson had not really arrived until he was told to leave. Then he was just like hundreds of managers before him.

It was exactly because she was treated fairly that she didn't win.

Except that's not what happened. Al Gore quit because he couldn't win. There was no more fight to fight.

well, he could have tried to organize massive protests and strikes, and ran a government from the streets. i don't know that he really could have pulled it off, but thats what people who have the power sometimes do in the face of illegitimate elections.

but yeah, within the bounds of the system, when the supreme court declares that the other guy wins, there ain't much you can do.

but yeah, within the bounds of the system, when the supreme court declares that the other guy wins, there ain't much you can do.

***Shoryuken!***

Hope for his assassination, maybe?

well, he could have tried to organize massive protests and strikes, and ran a government from the streets. i don't know that he really could have pulled it off, but thats what people who have the power sometimes do in the face of illegitimate elections.

but yeah, within the bounds of the system, when the supreme court declares that the other guy wins, there ain't much you can do.

Whether you think he lost legitimately or not that would of been an unqualified disaster. Ugh...

well, he could have tried to organize massive protests and strikes, and ran a government from the streets. i don't know that he really could have pulled it off, but thats what people who have the power sometimes do in the face of illegitimate elections.

but yeah, within the bounds of the system, when the supreme court declares that the other guy wins, there ain't much you can do.

At least it shows there's a modicrum of democracy in the States.

There weren't mass killings and tanks rolling over protesters, like say the PRC...

It is bad to admit defeat before you defeated. No one does that in sport!
.
Sure they do. If your team is down after your at bat at the top of the ninth, they don't let the other team take their at bat and run the score up on you, the game ends because you can't win.

EDIT: So I blew my post on the same baseball analogy and no one posted between that and me finally finding the story I was looking for- (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/obama_widens_su.html)
Barack Obama has added five more superdelegates today, wresting one from Hillary Clinton and inheriting two from John Edwards, who endorsed him last week.

UPDATE: Obama just added superdelegate Jenny Greenleaf of Oregon, whose primary he won this week. “Senator Obama has the vision and leadership ability to move this country forward and to undo the damage done by the Bush administration," she said in a statement."

Obama now has 311.5 superdelegates, according to his campaign's count, and is within 56 delegates of clinching the nomination (barring the magic number changing if the Democratic National Committee adds disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan). Clinton almost certainly needs to get the vast majority of undeclared superdelegates, and the Florida and Michigan delegates, to pull out the nomination.

Not surprisingly, the same argument she's been making since Feb. 5th (as pointed out by Jocabia) is still not working and the scoreboard looks worse and worse. Since we know what happened when Obama reached the majority of available pledged delegates, we know what will happen when he reaches the magic 2026 in the near future. She does not have the clout she needs to get the magic she needs for the blind assignment of the delegates in Michigan, even her supporters aren't buying it-specifically the ones on the rules committee that her last desperate hopes hang on, so the only question is how much damage is her tantrum going to cause.

Incidentally, I love that this tantrum on her part is being laid at Obama's feet. "How's he going to deal with this mess I'm making? Huh? Makes ya think, huh?" The comedy gold just keeps coming.

I dont want to argue because they keep moving what I say, its not fair.

By the way, do you know what a Castrato is? I'm guessing not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato).

Sure they do. If your team is down after your at bat at the top of the ninth, they don't let the other team take their at bat and run the score up on you, the game ends because you can't win.

and in boxing there is the technical knockout, where others can judge a fighter unfit to continue even if the punch drunk boxer wants to keep going.

and in boxing there is the technical knockout, where others can judge a fighter unfit to continue even if the punch drunk boxer wants to keep going.

That's a better one by far.

That's a better one by far.

i'm here to help

Keith O goes just past the edge of reason as usual, but he hits some good notes along the way. That's my issue with it. Accidentally or on purpose, she left the taste that she was waiting to see if something terrible happens. Instead of directly addressing this, she talks about something else, like that was what people were upset about.

I'll say when I first read it, I was sitting with three Clinton supporters. They were big for her winning. However, they said her antics at this point have become pathetic. I can't say I disagree.

You know, honestly, I was just about to welcome you back. I may not agree with you, but you ARE making arguments. Surely, you can admit that a lot of the nonsense that has gone on between you and some of the posters here, myself included, has been just that. He complimented you, and I think he was right to do so. So let's just keep to the discussion and not get into you claiming that the game you play JUST like everyone else isn't fair, huh?
So accept the (back handed) compliments and don't sweat someone calling you "ignorant", "a fool", "crybaby", among other assorted cheap shots, etc.?

Yeah, as if you or the others would be so tolerant.......give me a break.

I honestly believe that some people cannot debate unless they berate their opponents. Too bad really.

I honestly believe that some people cannot debate unless they berate their opponents. Too bad really.

Food for thought:

Clinton is acting at ALL times like the simple fact that Obama's running against her is sexist.

When I made one of my first posts in response to Shalrirochia, a polite post by any account, the first four words in his response post were "to hell with you".

When I applied my 7th Riddle, one that did not have any offensive words to you, in response to a post of yours, you excused yourself from answering on account of finding it too "hateful". Meanwhile, both you and Shalrirochia post much worse things here.

I can only conclude that you're trying to see if you can make the mere act of disagreeing with you into a social faux pas, something you should know I will not allow.

So, I will have to ask:

What is your point?

So accept the (back handed) compliments and don't sweat someone calling you "ignorant", "a fool", "crybaby", among other assorted cheap shots, etc.?

Yeah, as if you or the others would be so tolerant.......give me a break.

I honestly believe that some people cannot debate unless they berate their opponents. Too bad really.

No, I was just saying that you shouldn't let you distract you from the reasoned discussion the rest of us (you are included in the us) were having. Like others have noted, you are not innocent. And, frankly, it doesn't matter how the debate gets derailed and what one's part is in it if they are complicit. As long as you entertain this aside while ignoring the reasoned posts, you ARE complicit. If you want to comment on this AND continue to respond to the reasonable posts, great. However, we both know that your replies are rather limited and it's a shame to waste them on pot/kettle type nonsense.

I don't know that she's able to keep track of her arguments anymore (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/24/clinton-democratic-nomination-process-needs-to-change/)-
“We’re going to have to change the system by which we pick the nominees, I believe, and we are with the system we have now,” Clinton said, responding to a supporter here who lamented the role of superdelegates in selecting the party’s nominee. “And I’m a big believer in one person one vote, and I believe in as much democracy as possible.”

Of course-
Despite her apparent dig against superdelegates, Clinton and her campaign have routinely argued that those party elites should be able to exercise their independent judgment in choosing a nominee, regardless of vote totals or pledged delegate counts
Same old pattern, when she was up by 100 Superdelegates they were the coolest, now that she's down by 31 (according to RCP) they're just a bunch of meanies. Whose support she would totally totally appreciate. Of course with the metric she suggests, the contest would be over. She has a solution for that, too-
“I think that’s an issue for debate in the future because I believe we should have primaries everywhere, and everybody, as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote,” she said. “We ought to group them so that nobody is at the tail end, so everybody has a chance to participate. But that’s all for the future.”
This isn't all bad, really-a decent argument can be made if it wasn't her. It's hard to argue that New Hampshire's current opinion of the candidates is reflected in their mid-January vote, and the states down the chain are so unacustom to relevance that they don't know what to do with themselves.

This is a good argument, and is really-on the surface, one she is making. But, at this point, since it's her, you can't help but look at the advantage that would have given a 'name' or establishment candidate, or how it would diminish smaller states inviting candidates to concentrate on 'big prize' states like Clinton did on Super Tuesday, matching Obama's total over several states by scoring big wins in big states. While it has the veneer of more democracy, it comes at the cost of the voice of small states. Which is something she and her campaign understand, because that's why they set the rules the way they did and why they decided to punish Michigan and Florida and why she commented on her support for it.

And then there's the ol' electability argument-
“Ask anybody who is supporting my opponent to please tell you how he gets to the 270 electoral votes that we must have to win,” she said. “Every independent analysis that I have seen, some of them done by no friends of Democrats as well as objective news channels, show that I defeat John McCain in key states like Florida, like Ohio, and my opponent does not. Show that I have won states totaling 300 electoral votes. My opponent has won states totaling about 217 electoral votes.”
Short hand? I'd say, campaigning-same thing he did to you to overcome your sense of inevitability and 20 point lead.

Hedging is still the order of the day (still disappointed that Obama has adopted this as well, but I can see he's trying to rise above the fight as he nears the finish line)
On her chances in South Dakota, Clinton said she is “racing against the wind here” because Obama has “a lot of the institutional support, a lot of the political establishment” in the state

I think the best system would have it so there were a few small states in advance of Feb first week and then MOST or ALL of the states on Feb first week. It gives a no-name candidate an opportunity to upset the establishment, but it doesn't make it so the rest of the states often don't count. Or perhaps in the interest of encouraging campaigning set up a system where there are a series of "super tuesdays". Maybe four, with a system that actually adjusts the schedule for states each election, so that states get opportunities to move around in the schedule.

*sniip*

You screwed up your quoting.

You screwed up your quoting.

Indeed I did...fixing...

And then there's the ol' electability argument-

Short hand? I'd say, campaigning-same thing he did to you to overcome your sense of inevitability and 20 point lead.

Hedging is still the order of the day (still disappointed that Obama has adopted this as well, but I can see he's trying to rise above the fight as he nears the finish line)

Sounds to me like she's using her embittered followers who swear they'll go McCain over Obama if she doesn't win to skew polls to me.

But what about random? Obama is caught in mens having gay sex, 150% for Clinton is possible.

Not the same as Obama is assasinated. That is wrong I admit.

Random is exactly right. That's the chance she has to win. Let's say, for shits and giggles, that she does drop out. Do you think if Obama was assassinated, or caught in gay sex, they wouldn't snatch her up immediately? Who the hell else would they pick? Would they pick one of the others who fell short by, oh... 1,900 delegates? The "Hillary should hold on for a 'what if' argument is ridiculous for this reason.

Everything I "spout" is backed by the poll pages I have repeatedly cited on this page.

You have polls showing that Obama supporters are all arrogant meanie-heads who mistreat you?

Or ones showing that he cannot win given states?

So accept the (back handed) compliments and don't sweat someone calling you "ignorant", "a fool", "crybaby", among other assorted cheap shots, etc.?

Yeah, as if you or the others would be so tolerant.......give me a break.

I honestly believe that some people cannot debate unless they berate their opponents. Too bad really.

See what I mean. You had pages of material to reply. All kinds of reasoned points all of which were debateable, but the only reply we got was about how much a meanie Luizzo is. Perhaps, just perhaps, you shouldn't use one poster as excuse to avoid debate, and *gasp* just offered up reasoned explanations for your positions. I know that's crazy talk, but try it out for a spell. It's fun. I promise.

You have polls showing that Obama supporters are all arrogant meanie-heads who mistreat you?

Or ones showing that he cannot win given states?

There was a report on my local news tonight discussing this very subject, specifically the Clinton supporters. They found quite a few who are unwilling to back Obama, and one who even said she would "do everything in her power to see him defeated in November".

My suspicion is that Obama is going to win the nomination. However, you people have some SERIOUS problems at that point because many of Clinton's supporters are absolutely infuriated with you. And lest you forget, Clinton won the votes of the OTHER half of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, just or not, they're in a position to tip states to John McCain. If so many as 10% of them go to McCain, it could conceivably upset the entire election for Obama.

There was a report on my local news tonight discussing this very subject, specifically the Clinton supporters. They found quite a few who are unwilling to back Obama, and one who even said she would "do everything in her power to see him defeated in November".

My suspicion is that Obama is going to win the nomination. However, you people have some SERIOUS problems at that point because many of Clinton's supporters are absolutely infuriated with you. And lest you forget, Clinton won the votes of the OTHER half of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, just or not, they're in a position to tip states to John McCain. If so many as 10% of them go to McCain, it could conceivably upset the entire election for Obama.

Ok, aside from the fact that your chosen girl didn't win, why are you upset? Obama didn't run a fraction of the attack ads Clinton did. He didn't use racism, he didn't use sexism (despite Hillary's claims). He's ran a very clean race. What the fuck are you people so mad about? That you backed the wrong horse? That your golden child won't get in this time? What?

(Snip) many of Clinton's supporters are absolutely infuriated with you. (Snip)

For no reason. Or, rather: Because Obama dared to Run Against Clinton While Black when she was Running While Female. So, no reason.

As for someone who calls themselves democrats and then go on to vote for McCain out of unwarranted bitterness, they deserve no respect. Good thing they won't matter. Because most of them are closet Republicans anyways.

Ok, aside from the fact that your chosen girl didn't win, why are you upset? Obama didn't run a fraction of the attack ads Clinton did. He didn't use racism, he didn't use sexism (despite Hillary's claims). He's ran a very clean race. What the fuck are you people so mad about? That you backed the wrong horse? That your golden child won't get in this time? What?

Every time I ask him this, I get either no answer or accusations of being "hateful" thrown at me. It seems Clinton's supporters got used to her victim role and decided to play it as well. You know, like those kids that see Superman flying, put on a cape and jump off the top of the wardrobe.

There was a report on my local news tonight discussing this very subject, specifically the Clinton supporters. They found quite a few who are unwilling to back Obama, and one who even said she would "do everything in her power to see him defeated in November".

My suspicion is that Obama is going to win the nomination. However, you people have some SERIOUS problems at that point because many of Clinton's supporters are absolutely infuriated with you. And lest you forget, Clinton won the votes of the OTHER half of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, just or not, they're in a position to tip states to John McCain. If so many as 10% of them go to McCain, it could conceivably upset the entire election for Obama.

I hope those people can look the parents, sisters, brothers, children, etc. in the face of those soldiers who never come home because they were upset that the "inevitable" candidate lost.

It's politics. People are mean sometimes. Frankly, I seem to remember it was the Clinton camp that said, "if you can't stand the heat..." In fact, they said it a lot. Why is that all of the sudden that people are vitriolic in politics suddenly causing Clinton supporters to faint?

Ok, aside from the fact that your chosen girl didn't win, why are you upset? Obama didn't run a fraction of the attack ads Clinton did. He didn't use racism, he didn't use sexism (despite Hillary's claims). He's ran a very clean race. What the fuck are you people so mad about? That you backed the wrong horse? That your golden child won't get in this time? What?

She didn't answer this when I asked it a couple days ago. I'd love an answer, but I'm not holding my breath...

For no reason. Or, rather: Because Obama dared to Run Against Clinton While Black when she was Running While Female. So, no reason.

As for someone who calls themselves democrats and then go on to vote for McCain out of unwarranted bitterness, they deserve no respect. Good thing they won't matter. Because most of them are closet Republicans anyways.

In all honesty, at this point I'm starting to consider these voters to be cryptoracists.

I hope those people can look the parents, sisters, brothers, children, etc. in the face of those soldiers who never come home because they were upset that the "inevitable" candidate lost.

It's politics. People are mean sometimes. Frankly, I seem to remember it was the Clinton camp that said, "if you can't stand the heat..." In fact, they said it a lot. Why is that all of the sudden that people are vitriolic in politics suddenly causing Clinton supporters to faint?

Or more specifically, WHAT IS IT that Obama supporters did to Clinton supporters that they find so mean, all the while Clinton says MUCH worse? We have been getting "arrogant" and "hateful" a lot here from the same people that called Clinton's assassination remarks "harmless"! Why?

Ok, aside from the fact that your chosen girl didn't win, why are you upset? Obama didn't run a fraction of the attack ads Clinton did. He didn't use racism, he didn't use sexism (despite Hillary's claims). He's ran a very clean race. What the fuck are you people so mad about? That you backed the wrong horse? That your golden child won't get in this time? What?

"I don't think they're piling on because I'm a woman. I think they're piling on because I'm winning," Clinton told reporters after filing paperwork to appear on the New Hampshire primary ballot.

"I anticipate it's going to get even hotter, and if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm very much at home in the kitchen," she said.

In just a few short months, it goes from "if you can't stand the heat" to "they're just a bunch of sexists who are picking on me."

"I don't think they're piling on because I'm a woman. I think they're piling on because I'm winning," Clinton told reporters after filing paperwork to appear on the New Hampshire primary ballot.

"I anticipate it's going to get even hotter, and if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm very much at home in the kitchen," she said.

In just a few short months, it goes from "if you can't stand the heat" to "they're just a bunch of sexists who are picking on me."

Worse, she says "if you can't stand the heat" when she throws LOTS of bad stuff then plays the victim when she's... competed against.

Something her supporters emulate.

There was a report on my local news tonight discussing this very subject, specifically the Clinton supporters. They found quite a few who are unwilling to back Obama, and one who even said she would "do everything in her power to see him defeated in November".

My suspicion is that Obama is going to win the nomination. However, you people have some SERIOUS problems at that point because many of Clinton's supporters are absolutely infuriated with you. And lest you forget, Clinton won the votes of the OTHER half of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, just or not, they're in a position to tip states to John McCain. If so many as 10% of them go to McCain, it could conceivably upset the entire election for Obama.
Polls indicate similar frustration against Hillary by Obama supporters - and droves of black voters will stay home if Obama gets thrown out on his ear.

Obama has not been attacking Clinton - so why are Hillary supporters "absolutely infuriated"? Mostly because Clinton has been doing a lot of claiming injury, and playing hard on fear and hate.

So. Let's review. By the numbers, Clinton is losing in every metric, except popular votes, provided we count in the fashion her campaign would like:

We count both Michigan and Florida, but don't count uncommitted Michigan ballots against her, don't estimate raw voter turnout for the caucus states that don't actually count how many voters voted for who (e.g., Iowa, in which all of the spreadsheets give about a couple thousand democratic "votes" without explaining that's condensed from about 250,000 Democratic primary voters).

Out of the 53 contests held so far, Clinton has actually won 20 - 2 of which were disqualified beforehand. Statistics strongly suggest she will win one of the remaining 3 contests - winning Puerto Rico and losing both South Dakota and Montana.

Worse, she says "if you can't stand the heat" when she throws LOTS of bad stuff then plays the victim when she's... competed against.

Something her supporters emulate.

Frankly, I'm not attacking her supporters. SHE's responsible. She's been making it seem like she has been mistreated since jump. She complained ON STAGE that they always ask her the first question in the debates. When Obama complained that the questions weren't about anything that people cared about, she told him he wasn't ready to be President. Think about the difference in those two complaints.

Bill and Geraldine both suggested Obama was only in the race because he's black. That's not racism. Obama simply runs hard and tries to win and it's sexism.

It's been double standard after double standard. Complaint after complaint.

Frankly, I'm not attacking her supporters. SHE's responsible. She's been making it seem like she has been mistreated since jump. She complained ON STAGE that they always ask her the first question in the debates. When Obama complained that the questions weren't about anything that people cared about, she told him he wasn't ready to be President. Think about the difference in those two complaints.

Bill and Geraldine both suggested Obama was only in the race because he's black. That's not racism. Obama simply runs hard and tries to win and it's sexism.

It's been double standard after double standard. Complaint after complaint.

I don't care who is responsible: It stops or I call them on it.

Otherwise, you're correct.

*snip*

What the crap? You're not a mod anymore?


*sits in rocker*

"Why in my day, we had mods with cute little nicknames like TJ who'd tear apart a thread if we didn't act right. And we had to post on servers that made you guess what was a reply to what. You kids don't know how good you have it."

There was a report on my local news tonight discussing this very subject, specifically the Clinton supporters. They found quite a few who are unwilling to back Obama, and one who even said she would "do everything in her power to see him defeated in November".

My suspicion is that Obama is going to win the nomination. However, you people have some SERIOUS problems at that point because many of Clinton's supporters are absolutely infuriated with you. And lest you forget, Clinton won the votes of the OTHER half of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, just or not, they're in a position to tip states to John McCain. If so many as 10% of them go to McCain, it could conceivably upset the entire election for Obama.
"I hope you guys have a solution for this problem we're creating."

I retired. A good long while ago, now. I think it's been over a year. Maybe about two years.

Jocabia, that's a very astute point regarding the debate complaint comparisons.

I would like to make a personal point of comparison. Bill Clinton came to talk in Boone, North Carolina, which doesn't often see former presidents. The line was enormously long, of course; Clinton's volunteers were running up and down the line handing out sheets which had a "I pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton" with a line to sign next to it on the top, and details about address, phone number, and if we wanted to volunteer for her.

We were told that these were required for admission - that the Secret Service needed to have this information.

Obama volunteers were actively going up and down the line telling people about how to vote early at the local courthouse, about the free bus service they were running to the polling places, and incidentally informed us that everybody would be admitted regardless of whether or not we filled in a sheet.

When I got to the door, the sheets proved unnecessary, and the Secret Service definitely had nothing to do with looking at them.

The contrast between the behavior of the volunteers left quite an impression on me.

(Snip)
The contrast between the behavior of the volunteers left quite an impression on me.

Well, golly gee, I wonder why. ;)

I have to say when Bill visited Houston I didn't see a major difference. In both places I found people quite pleasant. I was actually staying in the same hotel as Bill Clinton. I always thought that was strange because they didn't seem to be that careful about my stuff or anything. Hell, when I worked in DC in a government building they scanned everything I brought in every day. But, here I'm sharing a building with the former President and not so much.

As far as the debate points, I'm really, really disappointed in Hillary. She ran a historic campaign. She presented herself as strong and tough and really did get the backing of a LOT of people. I heard lots of talk about feminists not being particularly happy that the first woman President might appear to have gotten there by being the wife of a former President. But Hillary presented herself well, and I think any feminist should have been proud of the powerful campaign she eventually got rolling. Sure, there were some political games, but that's the nature of the beast.

What kills me now is that I am hearing Hillary supporters referring to this campaign as pathetic at this point. If there was ever a time that mysogynists would be crowing at the outcome, how could it not be at a time when a woman running for President is accusing everyone of sexism when really there hasn't been any more than the latent racism, and is basically threatening to destroy the party if she doesn't get her way.

Really, now, she holds herself up as an example for all women, a representative for all women. If I were a woman, I'd be telling her to sit down and let me speak for myself before she does any more damage.

For no reason. Or, rather: Because Obama dared to Run Against Clinton While Black when she was Running While Female. So, no reason.

As for someone who calls themselves democrats and then go on to vote for McCain out of unwarranted bitterness, they deserve no respect. Good thing they won't matter. Because most of them are closet Republicans anyways.

Honestly, what is supposed to be accomplished by an attempt to hold the party hostage? "We couldn't get the votes together to win the nomination, but if you don't give it to us we'll bring the whole house down!" Seriously? Step back and listen to yourselves. Your perceived slight will be nothing compared to the damage that would be done if the results are overturned by party insiders. All those newly registered Democrats, the future of the party that has been more active than ever, the frankly more people who voted for Obama-to have that taken by party insiders because he didn't know that this was supposed to be a Clinton coronation, not a primary-the threats of the 'baby wants their bottle' fringe will pale in comparison to the effect of a betrayal like that.

Pick yourself up, brush yourself off, and act like damn adults. Seriously.

You know, there was some potential for a flip when she was just arguing she was more electable. But you throw a tantrum like this and not alienate people, even your own supporters.

I might have gone with it after her control of the contest toward the end if she'd just run a clean race. But she really is doing anything and everything she can to cheat.

The only real beef I have with Obama is that I'm not convinced he'll stand up for Democratic values. He talks about reconciliation. The problem is that the Republicans are not interested in reconciliation. They're interested in achieving their agenda. Hillary Clinton strikes me as being a candidate that WILL stand up for our values.

My biggest impediment to voting for Obama is Obama's supporters. I view some of them as naive, some of them as radical, and some of them as being simply downright vicious. Heikoku's ongoing tirades in particular drive me away from the Obama camp.

I happen to be male (it is frequently assumed that I am a woman)....and -I- feel that Clinton has been deep-sixed in part because of sexism. Her own missteps made the situation worse, but they shouldn't have sunk her by themselves. She became the victim also of the rising star story, of a media eager to create a real scoop. Wow! Look out! Here comes the new, fresh-faced Barack Obama! Upset! Read all about it!

Snort with derision at those Clinton backers who are moving in McCain's direction all you like. But they are moving regardless of what you think of them. In fact, some are moving BECAUSE of what you think of them. Barack Obama's victory may well fracture the party and lead to our defeat in November. If Obama is defeated, I will rightfully be able to say, "I told you so"...because no matter how I look at it, he fights in the general election at a disadvantage to John McCain.

Just a reminder: the election will be over by Christmas. NSG won't. You're going to have to continue interacting with each other -- politely. So keep the discussion (and the hostility) general. "Clinton/Obama supporters" rather than "you people", and so on, 'kay?

EDIT: Cor! A Learned Elder sighting! *removes hat* :)

Just a reminder: the election will be over by Christmas. NSG won't. You're going to have to continue interacting with each other -- politely. So keep the discussion (and the hostility) general. "Clinton/Obama supporters" rather than "you people", and so on, 'kay?.

Point well taken.

The only real beef I have with Obama is that I'm not convinced he'll stand up for Democratic values. He talks about reconciliation. The problem is that the Republicans are not interested in reconciliation. They're interested in achieving their agenda. Hillary Clinton strikes me as being a candidate that WILL stand up for our values.

My biggest impediment to voting for Obama is Obama's supporters. I view some of them as naive, some of them as radical, and some of them as being simply downright vicious. Heikoku's ongoing tirades in particular drive me away from the Obama camp.

I happen to be male (it is frequently assumed that I am a woman)....and -I- feel that Clinton has been deep-sixed in part because of sexism. Her own missteps made the situation worse, but they shouldn't have sunk her by themselves. She became the victim also of the rising star story, of a media eager to create a real scoop. Wow! Look out! Here comes the new, fresh-faced Barack Obama! Upset! Read all about it!

Snort with derision at those Clinton backers who are moving in McCain's direction all you like. But they are moving regardless of what you think of them. In fact, some are moving BECAUSE of what you think of them. Barack Obama's victory may well fracture the party and lead to our defeat in November. If Obama is defeated, I will rightfully be able to say, "I told you so"...because no matter how I look at it, he fights in the general election at a disadvantage to John McCain.

"My biggest impediment to voting for Obama is Obama's supporters."

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

"I will rightfully be able to say, "I told you so"..."

If Obama lost in November it would not prove that Clinton could have done better. If anything his down ballot effect would make a loss more palatable that a Clinton loss because we'd have bigger majorities in Congress.

In an electorate (the Democratic Party) where there are more women than men and those women who said gender mattered broke for Clinton in most states I fail to see how sexism "sunk" her.

The media follows a winner. In the 2007 portion Guiliani-Clinton was 'inevitable'. When Obama won Iowa, she was "done". Before South Carolina, Obama was 'on the ropes'. After Super Tuesday Obama was unbeatable. After Texas/Ohio she was resurging. After Pennsylvania she was finishing up her comeback. After WV/Oregon he's getting "thumped" in WV while the news sources only mention that he won in Oregon like it was irrelevant (though the pay some attention to the lock up of the nomination.) To equate sexism and sensationalism is questionable.

The only real beef I have with Obama is that I'm not convinced he'll stand up for Democratic values. He talks about reconciliation. The problem is that the Republicans are not interested in reconciliation. They're interested in achieving their agenda. Hillary Clinton strikes me as being a candidate that WILL stand up for our values.

Let me guess... you base this on the fact that he stood up for our values in IL? Because he did. No, that would be the opposite of your claim. Maybe it was the 95% of his votes that matched up exactly with Clinton? Nah, that kind of shoots your point in the foot as well.

The major difference between Hillary and Obama has been demonstrated in this campaign. Obama knows how to take a situation that doesn't favor him and make it favor him, within the rules. Hillary has shown time and again that she cannot do this. She failed on health care the first time because she wasn't good enough at the game. Now, maybe it was a game destined to be lost, but then one wonders why she wasted everyone's time. Moreso, she had this all but locked up and she lost. She certainly could have won if she'd run the campaign properly from jump. But she lost. And now she not only won't accept that, but she's blaming anyone and everyone and trying to change every rule in the book in order to get back in it. I strongly suspect, if Obama were doing that, you'd be attacking him. And you'd be right to do so.



My biggest impediment to voting for Obama is Obama's supporters. I view some of them as naive, some of them as radical, and some of them as being simply downright vicious. Heikoku's ongoing tirades in particular drive me away from the Obama camp.

Actually, they greatly match your own tirades. You've shown a very similar vitriol to anyone who dares to support Obama.


I happen to be male (it is frequently assumed that I am a woman)....and -I- feel that Clinton has been deep-sixed in part because of sexism. Her own missteps made the situation worse, but they shouldn't have sunk her by themselves. She became the victim also of the rising star story, of a media eager to create a real scoop. Wow! Look out! Here comes the new, fresh-faced Barack Obama! Upset! Read all about it!

What does that have to do with sexism? What is your evidence of the sexism that drove her down? According to the exit polls, she BENEFITTED from sexism.

Obama ran a better campaign. You can say what you want about him as a candidate, but that he ran a better campaign than Hillary is simply not something that could be even remotely debated against. His campaign was more organized, more prepared, more broad, and knew exactly what they had to do to win and did it.


Snort with derision at those Clinton backers who are moving in McCain's direction all you like. But they are moving regardless of what you think of them. In fact, some are moving BECAUSE of what you think of them. Barack Obama's victory may well fracture the party and lead to our defeat in November. If Obama is defeated, I will rightfully be able to say, "I told you so"...because no matter how I look at it, he fights in the general election at a disadvantage to John McCain.

See, none of this matches up. It's absurd. So you want a candidate that will stand up for our Democratic values. You're not sure that's Obama. So you vote for McCain? That's not rational.

You're angry at Obama's supporters, so you vote for McCain? Also not rational.

Seriously, I want to have someone tell me to my face that they are going to vote for McCain to teach Obama a lesson. Because the "I told you so" I'll be saying if that happens will be written in the blood of soldiers and I won't be dancing on their graves as you seem wont to do.

I am just shocked, however, at how hostile the Obama people have been. These are the Clintons, for Christ's sake. They are intelligent. They are skilled. The nation prospered greatly under them. Many in the Party (myself included) are highly loyal to them, and nothing Barack Obama can say or do will tear my loyalty away from them. The only way I foresee myself backing Obama in any capacity is if he either chooses Clinton as the VP candidate or if she gets up on the stage at the convention and urges her supporters to back him.

I view some of them as naive, some of them as radical, and some of them as being simply downright vicious. Heikoku's ongoing tirades in particular drive me away from the Obama camp.

Which tirades? What proof do you have to be so offended? If you have any, the Moderation channel is at your disposal.

If you don't:

Archoille, tell me please, is flinging unfair accusations at someone in the hopes of offending them or getting a rise of them flaming, or flamebaiting, or actionable at all?

Point well taken.

I have a question. About all those feminists who are supporting Clinton, and there are MANY. Do you really think they are going to be willing to put a candidate in office who has a GREAT record toward being anti-choice? You really think when just one more justice could do in Roe v Wade that all these liberals are going to go, "you know what, screw women's bodies and their rights. RIght now, we gotta teach those bastards a lesson for not supporting our candidate!!!"

Actually, they greatly match your own tirades. You've shown a very similar vitriol to anyone who dares to support Obama.

I don't wish to offend, Jocabia, but most of the things I wrote were VERY nice compared to the things he wrote.

Which tirades? What proof do you have to be so offended? If you have any, the Moderation channel is at your disposal.

If you don't:

Archoille, tell me please, is flinging unfair accusations at someone in the hopes of offending them or getting a rise of them flaming, or flamebaiting, or actionable at all?

Dude. I have NO desire to elevate an argument to the moderation level. As far as I am concerned, we have a disagreement. Nothing more. Nor am I attempting to flame-bait you. If anything, I've been displaying remarkable self control. Until the last post, I didn't even refer to you by name.

I am just shocked, however, at how hostile the Obama people have been.

The first reply I made to you, a polite one, was greeted by the following words in your post: "To hell with you.".

So, who is being hostile again?

I don't wish to offend, Jocabia, but most of the things I wrote were VERY nice compared to the things he wrote.

Recently, you've done quite well, actually. So has he. But you'll admit there have been times when you've gotten the hairs on the back of your neck standing up and you've been on the attack. Remember the Rush and Rosie stuff. You can get riled. However, he might note that it has nothing to do with you being an Obama supporter and everything to do with you being you.

The only real beef I have with Obama is that I'm not convinced he'll stand up for Democratic values.

So in other words you have no clue what his voting record is, didn't bother to do the research, and made a knee jerk reaction.

Dude. I have NO desire to elevate an argument to the moderation level. As far as I am concerned, we have a disagreement. Nothing more. Nor am I attempting to flame-bait you. If anything, I've been displaying remarkable self control. Until the last post, I didn't even refer to you by name.

How is that self-control? Why should acting like a reasonable person require "remarkable self-control"?

Dude. I have NO desire to elevate an argument to the moderation level. As far as I am concerned, we have a disagreement. Nothing more. Nor am I attempting to flame-bait you. If anything, I've been displaying remarkable self control. Until the last post, I didn't even refer to you by name.

I don't care if you want to go to the moderation with this: You've been accusing me of being hateful, hostile, and several other things whenever I dare to defend Obama, and, quite frankly, I am through with this. Do you have any evidence at all that I was "hostile" or "hateful" or is it only the fact that I support someone you don't?

The first reply I made to you, a polite one, was greeted by the following words in your post: "To hell with you.".

So, who is being hostile again?

That was a week or so ago, and I was cautioned by a Mod at the time and had my posting privileges revoked for three days as a result of a complaint lodged by you. I believe that this is the same argument that got you banned as well. Since that time, I have been remarkably placid. Why do you resurrect this?

Recently, you've done quite well, actually. So has he. But you'll admit there have been times when you've gotten the hairs on the back of your neck standing up and you've been on the attack. Remember the Rush and Rosie stuff. You can get riled. However, he might note that it has nothing to do with you being an Obama supporter and everything to do with you being you.

I did get riled, but not at him.

That was a week or so ago, and I was cautioned by a Mod at the time and had my posting privileges revoked for three days as a result of a complaint lodged by you. I believe that this is the same argument that got you banned as well. Since that time, I have been remarkably placid. Why do you resurrect this?

Because you keep on making the same "you're hostile" or "you're hateful" accusation whenever I dare to make an argument for a candidate that isn't yours. That's why.

Archoille, tell me please, is flinging unfair accusations at someone in the hopes of offending them or getting a rise of them flaming, or flamebaiting, or actionable at all?

What I'll tell you, and anyone else thinking of getting into this, is: CUT IT OUT! NOW!

I don't care if you want to go to the moderation with this: You've been accusing me of being hateful, hostile, and several other things whenever I dare to defend Obama, and, quite frankly, I am through with this. Do you have any evidence at all that I was "hostile" or "hateful" or is it only the fact that I support someone you don't?

It's the persecution complex coming from Hillary. Anyone who doesn't support her is sexist and mean. :rolleyes:

I tell you, she's not doing any other women politicians favors here. I pity the next woman to try for president. They'll have to deal with her baggage.

I am just shocked, however, at how hostile the Obama people have been. These are the Clintons, for Christ's sake. They are intelligent. They are skilled. The nation prospered greatly under them. Many in the Party (myself included) are highly loyal to them, and nothing Barack Obama can say or do will tear my loyalty away from them. The only way I foresee myself backing Obama in any capacity is if he either chooses Clinton as the VP candidate or if she gets up on the stage at the convention and urges her supporters to back him.

Dude, did you just figure out that a large portion of the country HATES the Clintons? Did you just get here?

The nation that prospered was inhereted. The economy was in great shape when Bill took office. Now, I'll say plainly that he handled well, but that doesn't mean he's a hero.

He also passed DOMA, NAFTA and "don't ask, don't tell". So much for standing up for democratic values.

He also refused to go and fight in a civil war when it was his turn, but when he was CIC, he ONLY got involved in civila wars. Wars I and my friends had to fight in his stead.

But, hey, there is simply no reason to dislike Clinton. Right?

Now, Bill isn't Hillary. And there are lots of reasons to like Bill as well as Hillary, but let's not act like it's news that some people don't like one or both of them.

What I'll tell you, and anyone else thinking of getting into this, is: CUT IT OUT! NOW!

Ardchoille, would you mind sending my nation a PM? I wish to ask you a question.

Dude, did you just figure out that a large portion of the country HATES the Clintons? Did you just get here?

The nation that prospered was inhereted. The economy was in great shape when Bill took office. Now, I'll say plainly that he handled well, but that doesn't mean he's a hero.

He also passed DOMA, NAFTA and "don't ask, don't tell". So much for standing up for democratic values.

He also refused to go and fight in a civil war when it was his turn, but when he was CIC, he ONLY got involved in civila wars. Wars I and my friends had to fight in his stead.

But, hey, there is simply no reason to dislike Clinton. Right?

Now, Bill isn't Hillary. And there are lots of reasons to like Bill as well as Hillary, but let's not act like it's news that some people don't like one or both of them.

Touche.

I tell you, she's not doing any other women politicians favors here. I pity the next woman to try for president. They'll have to deal with her baggage.

With any luck, Clinton will have been forgotten by then.

With any luck, Clinton will have been forgotten by then.

She doesn't strike me as the type to fade gracefully.

She doesn't strike me as the type to fade gracefully.

I never claimed she could do anything gracefully. Right now she strikes me as the type who would belch during a meeting with the Pope.

At any rate, people will not (hopefully) think of Clinton when they next see a female candidate. Especially if said candidate does not ACT like Clinton.

I am just shocked, however, at how hostile the Obama people have been. These are the Clintons, for Christ's sake. They are intelligent. They are skilled. The nation prospered greatly under them. Many in the Party (myself included) are highly loyal to them, and nothing Barack Obama can say or do will tear my loyalty away from them. The only way I foresee myself backing Obama in any capacity is if he either chooses Clinton as the VP candidate or if she gets up on the stage at the convention and urges her supporters to back him.

Well, she has pledged to support the nominee - whoever he or she is. As that's almost certainly Obama she'll be supporting Obama.

Ardchoille, would you mind sending my nation a PM? I wish to ask you a question.


I can't; you've got it set to not receiving. Can you send me a TG? And my reply won't be speedy, as I'm moving house today.

Well, she has pledged to support the nominee - whoever he or she is. As that's almost certainly Obama she'll be supporting Obama.

I admire your optimism in thinking she won't backtrack.

I can't; you've got it set to not receiving. Can you send me a TG? And my reply won't be speedy, as I'm moving house today.

Yes, actually I'd prefer to telegram since it's a system I am familiar with.

I admire your optimism in thinking she won't backtrack.

I try to assume good faith. I don't think she'd go backon that promise - especially since she's looking for the VP slot and help paying off debt.

I try to assume good faith. I don't think she'd go backon that promise - especially since she's looking for the VP slot and help paying off debt.

She threw away the VP slot about a month ago. As for help paying off debt, I hope Obama helps her with fund-raisers. I also hope these fund-raisers provide her little to no money and she ends up footing the bill.

For the record, I was in the military almost exclusively during the Clinton terms. He had a very high approval rating in this country, but not among us. We felt he'd shown a fair amount of disdain for us in his past actions and with his actions as President.

Anyone heard of stress cards? See, Clinton's people thought, you know what would be a good idea? While we're pulling the US's pants down by shrinking the military, let's also ensure they're poorly trained. So they made some changes. One of them was to hand out little cards that recruits could use when they were "stressed". Because, you know, they hand those out during wars too. Hey, that guy's shooting at me? Doesn't he see my stress card? The origin wasn't new. It was designed to give them access to counseling. The problem is that you are intentionally isolated during Marine Corps boot camp. You're not supposed to encourage recruits to go outside of the platoon. It's a bad, bad idea.

There were other silly little policies that we learned to work around, but for the most part the Marines that served with me that went through Boot Camp during that time were undisciplined and often outright embarrassing. For those who aren't aware, the military also had rules at that time that made it so any kind of bad marks on your record could be career-ending. So we relied heavily on the respect drilled into recruits in boot camp. Without it, I had to make decisions between actually going through proper channels to discipline someone, and effectively ruin them as potential leaders, or I had to just yell really loud. It was a very bad time.

Now take those same situations and those same people and send them to warzones where they aren't supposed to fire even though they are under the threat of attack. It doesn't work and didn't work. So, yeah, I'm not a big Clinton fan. Sorry.

EDIT: Keep in mind that has nothing to do with Hillary, Bill Clinton's domestic pollicies or any of the things he did right. I'd argued till I was out of breath that WJC was 1000x better than GWB. I don't, however, think that's a particularly high bar.

Snip.

In my case, it BEGAN as a practical issue: I thought, and still think, that Obama will win it more easily against McCain.

However, after seeing the kind of crap Clinton pulled, it became quite a bit more personal.

Edit: Jocabia, sent you a TG.

EDIT: Keep in mind that has nothing to do with Hillary, Bill Clinton's domestic pollicies or any of the things he did right. I'd argued till I was out of breath that WJC was 1000x better than GWB. I don't, however, think that's a particularly high bar.

Indeed, that's a lot like playing American Football better than a newborn.

See what I mean. You had pages of material to reply. All kinds of reasoned points all of which were debateable, but the only reply we got was about how much a meanie Luizzo is. Perhaps, just perhaps, you shouldn't use one poster as excuse to avoid debate, and *gasp* just offered up reasoned explanations for your positions. I know that's crazy talk, but try it out for a spell. It's fun. I promise.
There was a message in there for you too, but it seemed to go sailing right over your head. You and your "team" seem to take turns, and at other times, it is the gang bang mentality. Whatever the tactics, they are rarely conducive to meaningful debate.

There was a message in there for you too, but it seemed to go sailing right over your head. You and your "team" seem to take turns, and at other times, it is the gang bang mentality. Whatever the tactics, they are rarely conducive to meaningful debate.

Pot/kettle. Meanwhile, you continue to drag this on, rather than offering anything at all to the debate. I continue to urge to you try your hand at debate. Let me know when you're ready.

Don't get upset that your "team" doesn't seem to have much support. This fact should be considered telling. But, I'm not judging it by popularity. I'd love to judge based on arguments, only, you seem to working very hard at not providing any?

There are three contests left. Opinions?

Obama is within 60 delegates of winning. Opinions?

Hillary says she lost due to sexism. Opinions?

Hillary says she's not running for VP. Opinions?

Offer ANYTHING to the debate. We've already been asked to stop the distraction of who is being mean to who. So, fine, we're all meanies. You're whiny complaint is noted. Now debate.

There was a message in there for you too, but it seemed to go sailing right over your head. You and your "team" seem to take turns, and at other times, it is the gang bang mentality. Whatever the tactics, they are rarely conducive to meaningful debate.

You make it sound like we gather off sight and co-ordinate. I don't know these people and don't want to. I don't know when they're going to be online and I don't care. I comment when I have a comment to make and I don't when I'm either busy or the argument has gotten childish, like who is being a big meany to who. There is no 'tactics.' This is a discussion. It's the internet, we come and we go. There is no conspiracy.

I know these were aimed at CH, but they do make good general points for the discussion from here.

There are three contests left. Opinions?

Bring it on so we can get on with the real contest.

Obama is within 60 delegates of winning. Opinions?

With HRC's latest stage of her melt down, the assassination outrage, I expect the supers to be dropping her like a radioactive ball, and we may see that figure passed before June 3.

Hillary says she lost due to sexism. Opinions?

Patently, laughably false. I'd love to see the US have a female president. That we haven't should be considered a national disgrace.

She lost because 1) her opponent out campaigned her, 2) she's despised by many, even within her own party, and 3) she

Hillary says she's not running for VP. Opinions?

Good. She'd do more harm to the dem's ticket if she were on it, by pushing away the indies and Obama Republicans...

And a note looking back 5 months ago, re predictions:
Indeed so. This is the most likely scenario at the moment. It's the "brokered convention" Free Soviets mentioned above. Edwards will stay in until Super Tuesday. On that day, the whole election is most likely going to be decided something like this:

If Obama win's big, he'll most likely be the next president.

If Clinton wins big, she'll get the nomination and loose the race. Bloomberg will probably jump in. Then the race will go one of two ways, depending on the GOP's candidate. If the GOP nominates McCain, he'll beat Clinton, no question. And if they nominate another candidate, it'll be 1992 all over again, but with the roles switched. The race will be close, but Bloomberg will pull the needed votes from the Dems and the GOP will win.

And if it's a toss up, Edwards will be offered the VP spot in exchange for his delegates. I expect he'll go with Obama, winning both the nomination and the election.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13402223&postcount=141

Decent accuracy.

Personally, my opinion of the sexism charges is that Senator Clinton is an embarrasment to all feminists, female and male alike. I want a woman President. I would LOVE a woman President. I'm a firm believer in the idea that men and women are equally capable of everything, and I would very much like the proof presented with a woman President.

However, at this point, I would not be able to stomach Senator Clinton. After all, I'm not just voting for the President of my country; I'm voting for my commander-in-chief, and that has to be someone I'd be willing to follow. Maybe if Senator Clinton had run a decent campaign and acted properly I'd be willing to follow her, but I'm not now.

To be honest I'm still a little hesitant with Senator Obama as well, but I'm going to trust my instincts and say he's a leader I'm more than willing to follow. He's definitely inspiring. I just hope it's not empty promises and false hopes. (I realize there is very little chance of that at this point, but it's still a concern for me.)

Kyronea, I just now read the thread in your signature (because I have sigs turned off) and found this gem:

To me, this is the biggest problem on NSG. Too many puppets and too much puppet wanking. If the puppets were non existent, there would be more orderly debate and prehaps even less trolling. If you knew that Joe was always Joe, you wouldn't have to worry about him being Jack, John, etc.

Also the debaters that can't or won't back up their talking points with links to credible information often jam up the debate and more often sidetrack it entirely, which could be their purpose in the first place.

Heh...

You know, I just had a rather horrifying thought. Since I find it highly unlikely Hillary will give up short of the general election, do ya'll think it's likely she'll break off and run third party?

There was a report on my local news tonight discussing this very subject, specifically the Clinton supporters. They found quite a few who are unwilling to back Obama, and one who even said she would "do everything in her power to see him defeated in November".

Ok. So there are Clinton supporters saying that they intend to sabotage the Democratic party nominee if it isn't their favorite. It seems to me that this says more about Clinton supporters than Obama supporters.

My suspicion is that Obama is going to win the nomination. However, you people have some SERIOUS problems at that point because many of Clinton's supporters are absolutely infuriated with you.

For what? Daring to back a candidate we think is the best one against Clinton?

And lest you forget, Clinton won the votes of the OTHER half of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, just or not, they're in a position to tip states to John McCain. If so many as 10% of them go to McCain, it could conceivably upset the entire election for Obama.

And that would be their own choice. And if they do it, they can live with knowing that the next 4 years of Bush policies are their own fault.

The only real beef I have with Obama is that I'm not convinced he'll stand up for Democratic values. He talks about reconciliation. The problem is that the Republicans are not interested in reconciliation. They're interested in achieving their agenda. Hillary Clinton strikes me as being a candidate that WILL stand up for our values.

In other words, you want fighting instead of actual forward movement. Like it or not, the Republicans are a large part of the electorate. They matter just as much as the Democrats, the Independents, or any other political group. The president is supposed to be the leader of the entire country, not one who simply panders to his/her own party.

That said, it is a difference in strategy and opinion about that strategy. You see it in foreign policy as well. Clinton largely holds to the saber-rattling, "we're taking our ball and going home" strategy of not talking to our enemies unless they concede to whatever we want. Obama feels that diplomatic ties with our enemies are of paramount importance - even when they aren't willing to agree with us.

The same thing is true in party politics. The "us vs. them" mentality is great for getting people riled up. It's a lot like saber-rattling in foreign policy, but it doesn't get anything done. If you actually want to move things forward, you've got to get more than 51% of the electorate behind you - you've got to get a broad coalition.

My biggest impediment to voting for Obama is Obama's supporters. I view some of them as naive, some of them as radical, and some of them as being simply downright vicious. Heikoku's ongoing tirades in particular drive me away from the Obama camp.

How does that make sense? Can you not look at a candidate and determine his strengths/weaknesses for yourself?

I happen to be male (it is frequently assumed that I am a woman)....and -I- feel that Clinton has been deep-sixed in part because of sexism.

How so? Exit polls make it exceedingly clear that she actually benefited from sexism. Those who voted based on sex overwhelmingly voted for her (as did those who voted based on race, in most states).

I am a woman. I am a feminist. Sexism makes me incredibly angry. But I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that Clinton has been harmed by sexism. If anything, she has been helped by it time after time after time. Even the fact that the party elite hasn't pushed her out of the race yet is, I believe, either a product of treating her nicely because of her sex or because of her name. Any other candidate would have been pushed out long ago. If the current situation were reversed, nobody in the party would be tolerated Obama trying to stay in the race.

Snort with derision at those Clinton backers who are moving in McCain's direction all you like. But they are moving regardless of what you think of them. In fact, some are moving BECAUSE of what you think of them.

*shrug* Everyone votes for who they feel they must.

And in four years when soldiers are still dying in Iraq, the economy is a mess, fewer and fewer people have healthcare, the education system is continuing to decline, the US is falling further behind in medical research, etc., etc., etc., they will know that their votes helped make it happen.

Barack Obama's victory may well fracture the party and lead to our defeat in November.

As would Clinton's - probably to a much greater degree, as it would happen because the party elite, rather than the voters, would be putting her in that position.

I am just shocked, however, at how hostile the Obama people have been.

What hostility? I have seen very little hostility towards you that wasn't in response to your own.

Sometimes, it seems as if you are finding hostility in much the same way you are finding sexism - simply because you want to see it.

Many in the Party (myself included) are highly loyal to them, and nothing Barack Obama can say or do will tear my loyalty away from them. The only way I foresee myself backing Obama in any capacity is if he either chooses Clinton as the VP candidate or if she gets up on the stage at the convention and urges her supporters to back him.

Most likely, she will, but this is fine. You won't back Obama. But deciding to back McCain simply because you don't want to back Obama doesn't make much sense.

I highly doubt that I will back Clinton in November if she gets the nomination. But I'm not going to be backing McCain either. There is a middle ground. It is, after all, possible not to vote for either of them.

I'll answer these, too. =)

There are three contests left. Opinions?

I haven't really looked at the polls, so this is all coming from my own head. I think Clinton is slated to win Puerto Rico, but I think it will probably be by a lower margin than she thinks. At the same time, the fact that they moved from caucus to primary will likely make a difference in Clinton's favor.

Obama has done well in states like Montana and North Dakota, so I expect that he'll do well in both.

Obama is within 60 delegates of winning. Opinions?

I think he'll wrap it up within a day or so of the last primary.

Hillary says she lost due to sexism. Opinions?

I think this is absolutely untrue. If anything, she has benefited from it. She's definitely received more votes due to sexism, presumably from the "vote for her just because she's a woman" crowd.

And, while I don't know if it's because of her sex or her name, I think she has actually been handled much more gently than any other candidate in a similar position would have been. Any other candidate would have been pushed out of the race a long time ago. If the tables were turned, none of the party elite would be tolerating Obama staying in the race.

Hillary says she's not running for VP. Opinions?

Probably for the best. I honestly don't think having her on the ticket would help much. It is probably a good idea, however, if Obama asks her opinion on a VP and takes her advice very, very seriously. I think having her help pick the VP could be a good step towards reconciliation.

I also expect that, if not VP, she'll be expecting some sort of position out of the Obama presidency. Some of the pundits are talking about Supreme Court justice, but I don't really see that happening. I could definitely see her becoming Senate majority leader or a cabinet member or something along those lines.


You know, I just had a rather horrifying thought. Since I find it highly unlikely Hillary will give up short of the general election, do ya'll think it's likely she'll break off and run third party?

I don't think so. I think the Clintons have used up a lot of their political capital in the party, but I also still think they will remain a strong force within it. I don't expect her to go outside of that structure.

This race is almost over and then it will be McCain v Obama in November.

Shalrirorchia, I do not think that I have been especially rude to you, so could you please actually answer this question? I've posted it several times, and, as far as I can see, you have not replied:

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?

I mean, really. If McCain gets elected, thousands more troops and civilians will be killed. If McCain gets elected, millions will have to continue to go without health care. If McCain gets elected, our economy will continue to go into the gutter.

Is it worth it? Is it worth doing such damage to so many people... just because a few people were unkind to you?

CH, though you cannot vote in this country (unless I am mistaken), I would be interested in hearing your opinion too, from the perspective of if you could vote.

The Onion predicts the future? (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/desperate_hillary_to_obama)

WASHINGTON—Significantly trailing Sen. Barack Obama in delegates, Sen. Hillary Clinton made a last-ditch effort to settle the hotly contested presidential race Monday, when she loudly shouted a proposal that the candidate who gets the next vote wins the Democratic nomination. "All sides have battled long and hard, and now it is time to take up a fair and impartial method for deciding this: next vote takes all," Clinton said, adding that she was crossing her fingers behind her back to ensure that the electoral process is allowed to take its course. "Although I am open to discussing the feasibility of implementing a best-two-out-of-three policy, it has become clear the only way to settle this historic campaign is whoever can run to that door first—go!" Members of the Obama campaign disputed the results of the footrace, pointing out that the Illinois senator had long ago called for ace of black magic times infinity with no backsies.

What's "ace of black magic"? o_O

I mean, I know the other things, but...

What's "ace of black magic"? o_O

I mean, I know the other things, but...

I have no idea, I was hoping someone else knew. The only thing we would 'call' in games was no backsies, we generally kept the rules simple as the game was really just a pretext to running down your friend and tackling the hell out of them. And yet, not one of us went on to play football or become Lunatic Goofballs...

It is upon these decisions that the Axis of History rotates. Two paths lay before the world: a path of foolishness, of continued blindness, and a path of potential change and enlightenment. The question remains, what decision will cause us to take which path? And even should the presumably better of the two paths be taken, how much better will it truly be?

It is upon these decisions that the Axis of History rotates. Two paths lay before the world: a path of foolishness, of continued blindness, and a path of potential change and enlightenment. The question remains, what decision will cause us to take which path? And even should the presumably better of the two paths be taken, how much better will it truly be?

To me it's simple. You've got a potential for positive change, or you've got four to eight more years of the same old shit. Now even if the potential isn't fully realized I'll avoid the same old shit.

The definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing and expect a different result. Or that could be the definition of quantum physics.

To me it's simple. You've got a potential for positive change, or you've got four to eight more years of the same old shit. Now even if the potential isn't fully realized I'll avoid the same old shit.

The definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing and expect a different result. Or that could be the definition of quantum physics.

...

Psst. I was trying to be poetically philosophic. It was all rhetorical.

Linkie:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sides25-2008may25,0,4387451.story

To point out that the whole "Clintonites won't vote for Obama" threat is just talk.

Linkie:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sides25-2008may25,0,4387451.story

To point out that the whole "Clintonites won't vote for Obama" threat is just talk.

And the details there further my suspicions that those HRC supporters who seriously claim they'll vote JMc over Obama are cryptoracists...

And the details there further my suspicions that those HRC supporters who seriously claim they'll vote JMc over Obama are cryptoracists...

Or they're merely... not gonna.

Linkie:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sides25-2008may25,0,4387451.story

To point out that the whole "Clintonites won't vote for Obama" threat is just talk.

The fact is that on most issues recently the court has decided 5-4. The Clinton voter they are most worried about losing are the women who are offended by how she was treated. Do you really think those same women are willing to watch the death of Roe v Wade in order to teach Obama voters a lesson?

Now of course there's going to a be a strong democratic congress, but still, I just don't see the majority of democratic women being willing to do that under any circumstances.

Add in the war, torture, gas prices, etc., and it's really not at all likely that those voters aren't coming back. Especially when the two candidates are nearly identical in terms of voting.

The fact is that on most issues recently the court has decided 5-4. The Clinton voter they are most worried about losing are the women who are offended by how she was treated. Do you really think those same women are willing to watch the death of Roe v Wade in order to teach Obama voters a lesson?

Heck, they might even forget it all if/when Hillary stops playing the victim.

Linkie:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sides25-2008may25,0,4387451.story

To point out that the whole "Clintonites won't vote for Obama" threat is just talk.
Is it "just talk"?

1. You cited an opinion article.

2. Interesting tidbit #1:

According to a Pew Center for the People and the Press survey taken in late April, 77% of Democrats supported Obama over McCain, and 81% picked Clinton over McCain.

3. Interesting tidbit #2:

But if Obama, an African American, wins the nomination, as is expected, race could make the 2008 election different from previous presidential contests. There are certainly some white Democrats who won't vote for a black for president. An imperfect indicator is those Democratic primary voters who supported Clinton and said race was a factor in their decision. In the Kentucky primary exit poll, this group constituted 17% of all Democratic voters.
What also is very intertesting from my perspective is what I see when I look at the county maps for the primaries, and how many counties Clinton won in NY, Ohio, Pennsylvania, W. Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and even Missouri. Perhaps that is where some of those "bitter" voters live?

What also is very intertesting from my perspective is what I see when I look at the county maps for the primaries, and how many counties Clinton won in NY, Ohio, Pennsylvania, W. Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and even Missouri. Perhaps that is where some of those "bitter" voters live?

And your point would be?

Do you actually think these counties that would vote for Hillary over McCain would necessarily, or even likely, vote for McCain over Obama?

And your point would be?

Do you actually think these counties that would vote for Hillary over McCain would necessarily, or even likely, vote for McCain over Obama?
Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Then you seem not to have read the very big number of polls putting Obama at a greater advantage against McCain than Hillary's ever had.

Nor do you seem to appreciate that people would ACTUALLY vote for McCain to prevent Hillary from getting to the White House, nor the fact that many, MANY Democrats would NOT vote for her should the nomination be snatched from Obama after he had more of, well, everything, than her.

Absolutely.

Then why would they vote for Hilary in the first place? It's obvious their philosophy doesn't match up with her or the Democratic party if they're willing to vote for McSame.

Then you seem not to have read the very big number of polls putting Obama at a greater advantage against McCain than Hillary's ever had.
Where are these "very big number of polls"?

Nor do you seem to appreciate that people would ACTUALLY vote for McCain to prevent Hillary from getting to the White House,
I might not appreciate it but certainly I have read stories on both Democrat candidates.

nor the fact that many, MANY Democrats would NOT vote for her should the nomination be snatched from Obama after he had more of, well, everything, than her.
Where are these "facts"?

Where are these "very big number of polls"?

Ah, the goldfish response. Seriously, do we have to repost every poll because you ignore the first four or five times it's posted.


I might not appreciate it but certainly I have read stories on both Democrat candidates.


Where are these "facts"?

So you haven't seen the negativity ratings? You're not aware that there are great deal of democrats that have never liked Hillary. There are a lot of explantions, unfortunately some of them are just plain, old sexism, but that she's not particularly popular is sort of well-known.

Where are these "very big number of polls"?


I might not appreciate it but certainly I have read stories on both Democrat candidates.


Where are these "facts"?

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/

And that's about one more bit of evidence than you've been providing.

Ah, the goldfish response.

Lolwut? o_O

Lolwut? o_O

Goldfish are said (and there is some dispute) to only have @3 seconds of memory, so he's likening CH calling for evidence of things already established or remaking arguments already addressed to arguing with a goldfish, as a goldfish would make the same arguments over and over again because it wouldn't remember making them 5 seconds ago.

Goldfish are said (and there is some dispute) to only have @3 seconds of memory, so he's likening CH calling for evidence of things already established or remaking arguments already addressed to arguing with a goldfish, as a goldfish would make the same arguments over and over again because it wouldn't remember making them 5 seconds ago.

I was thinking it might be about that... Just checking.

Goldfish are said (and there is some dispute) to only have @3 seconds of memory, so he's likening CH calling for evidence of things already established or remaking arguments already addressed to arguing with a goldfish, as a goldfish would make the same arguments over and over again because it wouldn't remember making them 5 seconds ago.

Yes, there are a set of posters who seem to think that if they don't reply to argument and just wait till it's off the page that they can continue to pretend like it was never made. We all have the ability to catch up in the thread and asking a poster to repeat arguments simply because you ignored them the first time is poor debate. I call it goldfishing or the goldfish response. And, yes, it is I who coined that term.

Yes, there are a set of posters who seem to think that if they don't reply to argument and just wait till it's off the page that they can continue to pretend like it was never made. We all have the ability to catch up in the thread and asking a poster to repeat arguments simply because you ignored them the first time is poor debate. I call it goldfishing or the goldfish response. And, yes, it is I who coined that term.

Ooo, a coiner! :p

Ooo, a coiner! :p

You have to admit, especially given the nature of the internet where people can simply be "offline" when they don't like an argument, it's a very apt term, no?

Ah, the goldfish response. Seriously, do we have to repost every poll because you ignore the first four or five times it's posted.
He made an erroneous claim. Are you going to support that claim or just refer to me as a "goldfish"?

So you haven't seen the negativity ratings? You're not aware that there are great deal of democrats that have never liked Hillary.
Yet Hillary has been able to garner an equal number of votes amongst Democrats.

There are a lot of explantions, unfortunately some of them are just plain, old sexism, but that she's not particularly popular is sort of well-known.
Yet certain polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx)are definitely showing that Hillary is more popular than Obama. Strange huh?

You have to admit, especially given the nature of the internet where people can simply be "offline" when they don't like an argument, it's a very apt term, no?

You know, I think I'll use the term on other forums now. I love it.

He made an erroneous claim. Are you going to support that claim or just refer to me as a "goldfish"?Why should he dig it up just because you ignored it? Look yourself.



Yet certain polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx)are definitely showing that Hillary is more popular than Obama. Strange huh?

Do I have to point out the "lead" in those two graphs are well within the margin of error. I do I really have to explain polls to you? I'd of hoped not given how long you've posted in this thread.

He made an erroneous claim.


Yet Hillary has been able to garner an equal number of votes amongst Democrats.


Yet certain polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx)are definitely showing that Hillary is more popular than Obama. Strange huh?

Prove it, prove it, prove it.

Goldfish are said (and there is some dispute) to only have @3 seconds of memory, so he's likening CH calling for evidence of things already established or remaking arguments already addressed to arguing with a goldfish, as a goldfish would make the same arguments over and over again because it wouldn't remember making them 5 seconds ago.
In other words an ad hominen. Or we could just call it for what it is....flaming.

BTW, this is not a "remake" argument. It was in response to Heikoku 2's claim that:

Then you seem not to have read the very big number of polls putting Obama at a greater advantage against McCain than Hillary's ever had.

In other words an ad hominen. Or we could just call it for what it is....flaming.

You and Shalrirochia have called us arrogant, have played victim in this thread like crazy, and, essentially, thrown insults at us whenever we dared to make an argument against Clinton.

And now YOU accuse US of flaming.

Do you read what you write? Do you read what Shalrirochia writes?

I've said it once and I'll say it again: If you believe you've been flamed, there's always the mod forum.

However, I don't think you do. And I think you know you'd get a big, fat "no" from the mods on your accusations, should you ever complain about the things WE say while posting the things YOU post.

He made an erroneous claim. Are you going to support that claim or just refer to me as a "goldfish"?

I'm referring to your response. And since he has supported that claim and since you tend to skedaddle every time the argument isn't favoring you, NO, I won't do the work for you. He is required to support his claim ONCE. After that, the onus is on you to reply. That you didn't really isn't anyone's concern.


Yet Hillary has been able to garner an equal number of votes amongst Democrats.

Which she should view as an embarrassment considering she was challenged by a no-name that had to come out of nowhere and upset her standing as the inevitable candidate.



Yet certain polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx)are definitely showing that Hillary is more popular than Obama. Strange huh?
Um, you realize that's not a direct comparison between the two, no? It doesn't speak to which one is more popular. Regardless, as usually, you like "certain" polls at certain times.

Let's look at the bulk of the polls, shall we?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

And for the specific non-reply you offered, which rather than a comparison of popularity between the two, you compare them to McCain, let's see what the bulk of the polls show there.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

You'll notice that when taking the bulk of the polls into account instead of ONE, you get a different result. No need to guess why you don't like looking at all of the evidence, since it hasn't supported your candidate for three months.

Why should he dig it up just because you ignored it? Look yourself.
You cannot dig up what is not there. The onus is on him to provide the facts.

Do I have to point out the "lead" in those two graphs are well within the margin of error.
Actually you are mistaken:

The general election results are based on combined data from May 20-24, 2008. For results based on this sample of 4,423 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

I do I really have to explain polls to you?
Perhaps your understanding is not as great as you thought?

In other words an ad hominen. Or we could just call it for what it is....flaming.

BTW, this is not a "remake" argument. It was in response to Heikoku 2's claim that:

Um, it's as much flaming as calling an argument a strawman or an ad hominem. You used the goldfish response. It's a reference to your argument.

You and Shalrirochia have called us arrogant, have played victim in this thread like crazy, and, essentially, thrown insults at us whenever we dared to make an argument against Clinton.

And now YOU accuse US of flaming.

Do you read what you write? Do you read what Shalrirochia writes?

I've said it once and I'll say it again: If you believe you've been flamed, there's always the mod forum.

However, I don't think you do. And I think you know you'd get a big, fat "no" from the mods on your accusations, should you ever complain about the things WE say while posting the things YOU post.

I wonder if he noticed it's called the goldfish RESPONSE. Hmmm... I wonder if the word response refers to a poster or *gasp* their response. Can anyone, anyone help me figure out which it is? Please? I mean, what could "response" possibly refer to? Help me, I can't figure it out.

(Too dramatic? I actually put my hand to my forehead while I typed.)

Yet certain polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx)are definitely showing that Hillary is more popular than Obama. Strange huh?


That makes no sense whatsoever. How can Clinton be polling better when Obama leads among Democrats, and all we've heard for the last 16 years is how much the Right despises her? Does this have anything to do with that stunt Limbaugh tried to pull with having Republicans register to vote in Democratic primaries so they could vote for her, since she'd be easier to beat in November?

You and Shalrirochia have called us arrogant, have played victim in this thread like crazy, and, essentially, thrown insults at us whenever we dared to make an argument against Clinton.

And now YOU accuse US of flaming.

Do you read what you write? Do you read what Shalrirochia writes?

I've said it once and I'll say it again: If you believe you've been flamed, there's always the mod forum.

However, I don't think you do. And I think you know you'd get a big, fat "no" from the mods on your accusations, should you ever complain about the things WE say while posting the things YOU post.
You made a claim.

You can't back it up?

FYI, I don't run to the Mods to complain. I figure that if I mention it, then the posters involved will self moderate.

There's a thread for polls.




...

There should be a fourth thread for whining...

You made a claim.

You can't back it up?

FYI, I don't run to the Mods to complain. I figure that if I mention it, then the posters involved will self moderate.

It's been backed up. That you refused to respond the first time, we rationally view as concession. Now, if you're suddenly deciding you didn't want to concede the point, who's task do you think it should be to deal with the support. Yours, who didn't reply the first several times, or his, when he's given you everything you need to reply and got no response already.

The answer is obviously. Goldfishing doesn't work. We all saw him support his arguments. We've all seen you just simply drop arguments and pretend like they were never made. Goldfishing is not valid debate. It doesn't help you. Nor does requiring the same evidence to be posted repeatedly because you keep disappearing.

That makes no sense whatsoever. How can Clinton be polling better when Obama leads among Democrats, and all we've heard for the last 16 years is how much the Right despises her?
Yet, that is what some of the polls show.

Does this have anything to do with that stunt Limbaugh tried to pull with having Republicans register to vote in Democratic primaries so they could vote for her, since she'd be easier to be in November?
I have seen articles that suggest that Obama is the weaker candidate and I have seen articles that suggest Clinton is the weaker candidate. I believe that the former is more accurate.

You made a claim.

You can't back it up?

FYI, I don't run to the Mods to complain. I figure that if I mention it, then the posters involved will self moderate.

I already did, with one link.

In addition to all the OTHER ones posted in this thread.

I will NOT self-moderate on things only YOU and HIM would find offensive, and then only because we dare not to think Clinton is entitled by birthright to the Democratic nomination. You don't want us to self-moderate on being offensive, you want us to self-moderate on disagreeing with you.

There's a thread for polls.




...

There should be a fourth thread for whining...

I think since the nominee is decided, and, let's face it, there is no doubt who the nominee is going to be, that it's time we test the validity of some predictions since some have claimed that arguments aren't good enough, but the accuracy has to be assessed after the fact.

To the search engine!

I believe that the former is more accurate.

Faith is a beautiful thing, but it has no place in this debate.

I think since the nominee is decided, and, let's face it, there is no doubt who the nominee is going to be, that it's time we test the validity of some predictions since some have claimed that arguments aren't good enough, but the accuracy has to be assessed after the fact.

To the search engine!
Here's what I just told my girlfriend would happen-On Saturday the rules committee will come up with a comparimise that nets Clinton less than 20 delegates and attributes uncommitted delegates to Obama. She wins Puerto Rico, perhaps by a large margin, ignores the rules committee's ruling and continues to taught her 'popular vote' lead. She gets beaten in the last two contests, perhaps enough to eat away at the imaginary popular vote lead. Clinton has continued painting herself further and further in the corner, she has completely closed off her exits. While superdelegates peel off her in the dozens she claims again that voters are being dissenfranchised and the election is being stolen from her, she continues to stir up her base instead of supporting the nominee. She takes the fight to the credentials committee who also don't give her what she wants, but perhaps makes a small concession. She then takes the fight to the floor where she loses that fight, too. While she make overtures of supporting the candidate, or at the very least being quiet, she is now no longer in charge of her base-if she capitulates, they'll 'read between the lines,' if she's quiet she's 'been silenced,' and will speak for her. Then, in a frustrating ability to adjust blame, this will all be Obama's fault for his inability to unify the base. If he manages to win in spite of the lunatic fringe, he'll have been 'lucky,' if he doesn't win it will 'validate' them. In 2009, a major party shake up will insue where old school insiders that have been running Clinton's campaign will try to ouster the new insiders that were responsible for reversing 12 years of legislative majority for the Republicans and while McCain might, in the chaos, pull Republicans out of trying to live in the Reagan past, the Democratic Party will be living in the Clinton past and the future will roll on along without them. Again.

Paragraph breaks are for wusses.

I already did, with one link.
That link did NOT support your claim.

In addition to all the OTHER ones posted in this thread.
The additional links did NOT support your claim.

I will NOT self-moderate on things only YOU and HIM would find offensive, and then only because we dare not to think Clinton is entitled by birthright to the Democratic nomination. You don't want us to self-moderate on being offensive, you want us to self-moderate on disagreeing with you.
Hey....either you want orderly debate, or you believe that calling people "goldfish", or "whiner" or "idiot" or "stupid", or "foolish", etc. ad nauseum is conducive to debate. I don't think it is.

Faith is a beautiful thing, but it has no place in this debate.
It isn't faith my friend....it is a belief.

I wonder if he noticed it's called the goldfish RESPONSE. Hmmm... I wonder if the word response refers to a poster or *gasp* their response. Can anyone, anyone help me figure out which it is? Please? I mean, what could "response" possibly refer to? Help me, I can't figure it out.

(Too dramatic? I actually put my hand to my forehead while I typed.)
For someone to give a "goldfish" RESPONSE, then they would have to have a "goldfish" mentality?

Did that help you figure it out, or do you want to smack yourself in the forehead again?