NationStates Jolt Archive

That link did NOT support your claim.


The additional links did NOT support your claim.

What specific links did not support what specific claim?


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.
You weren't called a goldfish. Your argument was called a goldfish response. As usual, instead of actually debating you focus on the namecalling in an effort to derail debate.

Let's pretend today is the day that you go back through the thread and start replying to all the substantive questions and arguments and stop playing this silly game where you whine about namecalling you also engage in. Let me guess, you've never called anyone a liar, or a bushevik or any of a number of other attacks, right? How about just for today, you do this weird thing called debating? Sound good to you?

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?

Actually, not to good with reading? You're not familiar with that motion. It has nothing to do with smacking.

In order to give a goldfish response, your response would have to reflect that you aren't "remembering" the earlier bits of the thread. Yours does. That's not an accusation. That's a fact. I personally don't believe you don't remember it. But since I'm addressing the tone of the response and not your actual memory, that's not relevant. Seriously, the lengths you'll go to in order to whine about being flamed rather than debate is just laughable.

Someone wake me when the debate gets back underway...

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?

See, I'm not the only one who just gets flat out irritated with this nonsense. Hillary the victim is a role she is making for herself.

So since this nomination is settled, let's discuss some past claims.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13431572&postcount=211

State Date Total Del Obama Clinton
California 02/05 370 166 204 Clinton + 38
New York 02/05 232 C 93 139 Clinton + 46
Illinois 02/05 153 104 49 Obama + 55
Total at this point Clinton +29

New Jersey 02/05 107 48 59 Clinton + 11
Massachusetts 02/05 93 38 55 Clinton + 17
Georgia 02/05 87 60 27 Obama + 33
Total at this point Clinton +24

Minnesota 02/05 72 48 24 Obama +24
Missouri 02/05 72 36 36 Even
Tennessee 02/05 68 28 40 Clinton +12
Total at this point Clinton +12

Colorado 02/05 55 C 36 19 Obama + 17
Arizona 02/05 56 C 25 31 Clinton + 6
Alabama 02/05 52 27 25 Obama + 2
Total at this point Obama +1

Connecticut 02/05 48 C 26 22 Obama +4
Arkansas 02/05 35 8 27 Clinton +19
Oklahoma 02/05 38 C 14 24 Clinton +10
Total at this point Clinton+24

Kansas 02/05 32 C 23 9 Obama +14
New Mexico 02/05 26 C 12 14 Clinton +2
Utah 02/05 23 14 9 Obama +5
Total at this point Clinton +7

Delaware 02/05 15 C 9 6 Obama +3
North Dakota 02/05 13 8 5 Obama +3
Idaho 02/05 18 15 3 Obama +12
Total at this point Obama +11

Alaska 02/05 13 C 9 4 Obama +3
American Samoa 02/05 3 1 2 Clinton +1
Total at this point Obama +12

Obama won Super Tuesday. It's good we can finally settle that.

More interesting stuff. When people were arguing about which numbers were right, I took one state and analyzed it and divided the delegates. CA.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13433103&postcount=240
By percentage that 55% Clinton votes out of the votes for the two of them and 204 delegates.
166 Obama delegates.

I used that to point out that both sets of numbers were wrong.

California 02/05 370 166 204

The finally awarding of delegates exactly matches my calculation at the time. (CNN disagrees by one but they certainly don't match their old numbers which is what I was protesting. MSNBC and RCP agree with me exactly.)

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.

She already said she'd "work for the eventual nominee to ensure that we put a Democrat in the white House." So we'll count your vote for Obama. If Hillary is going to work for the eventual nominee that means she will support them. Why would she work for him and not encourage her backers to?

Someone wake me when the debate gets back underway...

Let's talk about predictions. It's fun reading the old threads. Hilarious actually. When the whole election is over we should do a greatest hits thread on some off-site forum.

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.

Really, then why have I been doing recon on your whereabouts for the past two months? I thought the idea was that we were working together, like the A Team. Ok, I'm done being a sarcastic prick for now.

What specific links did not support what specific claim?
You don't remember Heikoku 2's claim (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720008&postcount=968)?

The links provided by both you and Heikoku 2 did not support his claim.

You weren't called a goldfish. Your argument was called a goldfish response. As usual, instead of actually debating you focus on the namecalling in an effort to derail debate.
I do believe that you took the focus off the debate by insuating that I was a "goldfish".

Let's pretend today is the day that you go back through the thread and start replying to all the substantive questions and arguments and stop playing this silly game where you whine about namecalling you also engage in.
Let's pretend today is the day that you stop calling people "goldfish" or "silly", or "whiner", and actually debate the point

How about just for today, you do this weird thing called debating? Sound good to you?
It appears that you don't want debate. It appears that you are the one who sidetracked my discussion with Heikoku 2 regarding his claim, by posting this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720085&postcount=971).

Now, where were we....oh yeah.....Heikoku 2 was going to support his 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.

You don't remember Heikoku 2's claim (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720008&postcount=968)?

The links provided by both you and Heikoku 2 did not support his claim.

Amusing. So you're seriously claiming there have been no links in this thread that support that claim. Really?

And my link most certainly DID support that claim. I'm sorry if you're having difficulty, but you put up a link that compared them in popular vote. I demonstrated that when looking at all of the polls, that it wasn't true. I wonder how you define "support".


I do believe that you took the focus off the debate by insuating that I was a "goldfish".

Let's not waste anymore space debating whether saying an argument is intellectually dishonest is calling you a liar, whether saying it's a goldfish response is actually a reflection on your memory, whether calling an argument a strawman means that you burn easily.

Or when you've got no arguments, you can just keep feigning injury and pretend like that's a substitute.

Let's pretend today is the day that you stop calling people "goldfish" or "silly", or "whiner", and actually debate the point

When I call you a goldfish or a whiner the first time, let me know. Until then, how about you stop complaining and start debating.

I will continue to call arguments silly when they are. It's called debate. If you don't like, don't let the door hitcha.

It appears that you don't want debate. It appears that you are the one who sidetracked my discussion with Heikoku 2 regarding his claim, by posting this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720085&postcount=971).

Now, where were we....oh yeah.....Heikoku 2 was going to support his claim that:

Done and done. Let me know when you have a substantive reply. Right now, you're not fooling anyone.

Let's go back to your link claiming it addresses his claim.

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?

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.

You're right. It's not as if I linked to a direct comparison of the bulk of the recent polls. Now, of course, instead of actually addressing his argument, what you're going to do now is address the hyperbole. Because, God forbid, you actually sit down with us and have a reasonable discussion.



And while we're having debates, let's get back to those predictions pre-ST.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409895&postcount=61
Watch her fly on Super Tuesday. :D

Lalala.

Let's rehash:

CH: You called me a goldfish
Me: Um, no, I called your reply a goldfish response.
CH: Well, how could my post be a goldfish response if I didn't first have the qualities of a goldfish.
Me: Ugh, this argument is silly.
CH: Now you're calling me silly.
Me: How about we stop whining about namecalling and focus on the debate?
CH: Now you've called me silly, a whiner and a goldfish.

Seriously, am I the only one who thinks the constant sidetrack about namecalling that happens every time CH shows up is tiresome?

CH, pick the site, any site and I'll post every single post you've ever posted where you've called someone names. I'll point to the vast number of them that have come from threads about this political contest. And then you and I can bicker about what constitutes namecalling. We'll do it for days and you can complain to your little hearts content.

But in this thread, in this debate, focus on the friggin' debate. Seriously, you'll pulled every trick out of the bag in order to avoid substance. It's tiresome. Focus on the debate.

Snip.

See, when I say I respect you?

That's why.

It isn't faith my friend....it is a belief.

It isn't a dog, it's a Labrador!

Let's rehash:

CH: You called me a goldfish
Me: Um, no, I called your reply a goldfish response.
CH: Well, how could my post be a goldfish response if I didn't first have the qualities of a goldfish.
Me: Ugh, this is silly.
CH: Now you're calling me silly.
Me: How about we stop whining about namecalling and focus on the debate.
CH: Now you've called me silly, a whiner and a goldfish.

Seriously, am I the only one who thinks the constant sidetrack about namecalling that happens every time CH shows up is tiresome?

CH, pick the site, any site and I'll post every single post you've ever posted where you've called someone names. I'll point to the vast number of them that have come from threads about this political contest. And then you and I can bicker about what constitutes namecalling. We'll do it for days and you can complain to your little hearts content.

But in this thread, in this debate, focus on the friggin' debate. Seriously, you'll pulled every trick out of the bag in order to avoid substance. It's tiresome. Focus on the debate.
At this point any response to the quibble is just enabling him.

It isn't a dog, it's a Labrador!

LOL! :D

And while we're having debates, let's get back to those predictions pre-ST.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409895&postcount=61


Lalala.

After it was established that she didn't come out ahead on Super Tuesday I asked about the 'fly' thing and despite the fact that pre-ST it was billed as what would put her over the top and she was ahead in predictions, he considered pulling even 'flying.'

It isn't a dog, it's a Labrador!

"You're not a labrador retriever!"

"Sure I am. Get a labrador and I'll retrieve it...do you have a labrador?"

"Well, no..."

"Do you know where you can get one?"

"I-..."

"Do you even know what a labrador is?"

"No..."

"Than shaddup..."



Sorry, one of my favorite Elmer Fudd exchanges...

At this point any response to the quibble is just enabling him.

I seriously wish we had a whole thread for whining about namecalling. Because every time he is losing an argument, he starts up with this namecalling nonsense. I'm telling you, the next reply and I'm going back and finding thread after thread where his entire response was to attack a poster and nothing else.

I'll give you an example. In one thread, the poster started it saying they had switched from totally pro-Obama to totally pro-Clinton as a result of the Kennedy endorsements. You replied by posting an article that showed more Kennedys had endorsed Clinton. Here was his reply.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.
More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky.
Quite a bag of tricks you have there CTOAN? It would appear that you will go to any length to support your man?

That was the entirety of his contribution to that thread. To come in and attack you. He doesn't even address your very reasonable argument or comment. Just attack you. Considering he's complaining at referring to a response as a goldfish response, one has to wonder what standard he wants to be placed on what "attacks" are relevant and what aren't.

At what point does it become necessary to point out that the poster, and not just the posts, are a problem. Every time an argument doesn't go his way, he disappears or he claims it's namecalling or something else and simply derails the argument altogether. He drops arguments. He posts fallacies. He selectively presents evidence and when he's called on, he does one of the aforementioned.

I'm happy to leave it to just be debate, but he intentionally obscures the debate in this, this nonsense.

I'll tell you what. Someone, anyone tell me that this stuff about goldfish is just a reasonable aspect of debate and I'll concede right now. Until then it just looks to me like more of the "how dare you actually make a point I can't rebutt" that you see in the thread I just linked to.

After it was established that she didn't come out ahead on Super Tuesday I asked about the 'fly' thing and despite the fact that pre-ST it was billed as what would put her over the top and she was ahead in predictions, he considered pulling even 'flying.'

Well, it's true. Clearly, Super Tuesday was the day Hillary hit her stride. Uh, I mean her flap.

"You're not a labrador retriever!"

"Sure I am. Get a labrador and I'll retrieve it...do you have a labrador?"

"Well, no..."

"Do you know where you can get one?"

"I-..."

"Do you even know what a labrador is?"

"No..."

"Than shaddup..."



Sorry, one of my favorite Elmer Fudd exchanges...

You know when threads get petty, you should always post this. Because that was a great way to relieve the tension. And it speaks volumes that before I realized it was Elmer Fudd, I thought it was commentary on this "debate".

Let's rehash:

CH: You called me a goldfish
Me: Um, no, I called your reply a goldfish response.
CH: Well, how could my post be a goldfish response if I didn't first have the qualities of a goldfish.
Me: Ugh, this argument is silly.
CH: Now you're calling me silly.
Me: How about we stop whining about namecalling and focus on the debate?
CH: Now you've called me silly, a whiner and a goldfish.

Seriously, am I the only one who thinks the constant sidetrack about namecalling that happens every time CH shows up is tiresome?

CH, pick the site, any site and I'll post every single post you've ever posted where you've called someone names. I'll point to the vast number of them that have come from threads about this political contest. And then you and I can bicker about what constitutes namecalling. We'll do it for days and you can complain to your little hearts content.

But in this thread, in this debate, focus on the friggin' debate. Seriously, you'll pulled every trick out of the bag in order to avoid substance. It's tiresome. Focus on the debate.
I found a site. Rehash this (http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/funny/buy-a-vowel.jpg).

I seriously wish we had a whole thread for whining about namecalling. Because every time he is losing an argument, he starts up with this namecalling nonsense. I'm telling you, the next reply and I'm going back and finding thread after thread where his entire response was to attack a poster and nothing else.

I'll give you an example. In one thread, the poster started it saying they had switched from totally pro-Obama to totally pro-Clinton as a result of the Kennedy endorsements. You replied by posting an article that showed more Kennedys had endorsed Clinton. Here was his reply.



That was the entirety of his contribution to that thread. To come in and attack you. He doesn't even address your very reasonable argument or comment. Just attack you. Considering he's complaining at referring to a response as a goldfish response, one has to wonder what standard he wants to be placed on what "attacks" are relevant and what aren't.

At what point does it become necessary to point out that the poster, and not just the posts, are a problem. Every time an argument doesn't go his way, he disappears or he claims it's namecalling or something else and simply derails the argument altogether. He drops arguments. He posts fallacies. He selectively presents evidence and when he's called on, he does one of the aforementioned.

I'm happy to leave it to just be debate, but he intentionally obscures the debate in this, this nonsense.

I'll tell you what. Someone, anyone tell me that this stuff about goldfish is just a reasonable aspect of debate and I'll concede right now. Until then it just looks to me like more of the "how dare you actually make a point I can't rebutt" that you see in the thread I just linked to.
I remember that. It was still when I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. At the time I was just looking for the arguments for each candidate and got slapped with that. It all circled the bowl after that...

I found a site. Rehash this (http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/funny/buy-a-vowel.jpg).

You seriously want to jump from complaining that "goldfish response" is a flame to telling me to go fuck myself? Seriously?

What is so upsetting about doing everything in my power to try and get your to get back on the rails? Are you upset because your candidate is losing by every metric? Because, seriously, no one here is suggesting you're incapable of debate or reason. The only complaint anyone has is that you pop in for a moment only to talk about whether people are treating you with the proper respect.

We never get to actually have a debate with you and it's because the moment anyone makes the first comment you don't like, you derail the whole thing. Honestly, I said your repsonse is a goldfish response. I use that particular gem often and it is not a reflection on YOU, it's about your argument. If you don't want to hear about how your argument sucks, then a debate forum is probably not the best place to hang out. Or, at the very least, spend more time shoring up your argument so less people agree when someone says it.

I found a site. Rehash this (http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/funny/buy-a-vowel.jpg).

Sweat crap, dude. You're going to get this thread locked.

I remember that. It was still when I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. At the time I was just looking for the arguments for each candidate and got slapped with that. It all circled the bowl after that...

I'm done talking about this. I just read through four months of bickering about this stuff. I know people feel strongly about politics, but this is a political forum. When calling an argument a goldfish response results in go fuck yourself, something is wrong. I just want to debate. I don't want to spend two pages complaining about my term.

Unfortunately, there is a pretty strong precedent for "go fuck yourself" being considered flaming, but I'd be happy if some mod just outlawed derailing a debate with constant complaints about terms. It's not like we can just go start another thread and leave this nonsense behind. We get one thread and every couple of days he derails it by either coming in and attacking Corny or complaining that people are being nice enough. It makes it pretty pointless when there are really only two posters here who ever support Clinton.

So how about we get back to talking about some of our predictions from before Obama nailed this down? I'd love to get back to talking about something more interesting than whether a term referring to the nature of an argument is a flame.

Can you find any of your old predictions you'd like to remind us of?

More interesting stuff. When people were arguing about which numbers were right, I took one state and analyzed it and divided the delegates. CA.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13433103&postcount=240
By percentage that 55% Clinton votes out of the votes for the two of them and 204 delegates.
166 Obama delegates.

I used that to point out that both sets of numbers were wrong.

California 02/05 370 166 204

The finally awarding of delegates exactly matches my calculation at the time. (CNN disagrees by one but they certainly don't match their old numbers which is what I was protesting. MSNBC and RCP agree with me exactly.)

Let's talk about this ^

I'm done talking about this. I just read through four months of bickering about this stuff. I know people feel strongly about politics, but this is a political forum. When calling an argument a goldfish response results in go fuck yourself, something is wrong. I just want to debate. I don't want to spend two pages complaining about my term.

Unfortunately, there is a pretty strong precedent for "go fuck yourself" being considered flaming, but I'd be happy if some mod just outlawed derailing a debate with constant complaints about terms. It's not like we can just go start another thread and leave this nonsense behind. We get one thread and every couple of days he derails it by either coming in and attacking Corny or complaining that people are being nice enough. It makes it pretty pointless when there are really only two posters here who ever support Clinton.

So how about we get back to talking about some of our predictions from before Obama nailed this down? I'd love to get back to talking about something more interesting than whether a term referring to the nature of an argument is a flame.

Can you find any of your old predictions you'd like to remind us of?
I can't really come up with one that is gnawing at me. I did a while ago predict the pin pull moment, and I still think we're seeing that fruition. I predicted the nightmare end to that a little while ago.

I also predicted that revotes in Michigan and Florida were assured, I even gave a time frame for it.

I was wrong with the revote thing.

Let's talk about this ^
Not a lot of room there, unless you're looking for a biscuit.

I can't really come up with one that is gnawing at me. I did a while ago predict the pin pull moment, and I still think we're seeing that fruition. I predicted the nightmare end to that a little while ago.

I also predicted that revotes in Michigan and Florida were assured, I even gave a time frame for it.

I was wrong with the revote thing.


Not a lot of room there, unless you're looking for a biscuit.

I didn't specifically mean that one. Just that kind of stuff. I never really held out much hope for a revote that I can remember. I did hope they would come up with some more reasonable way to deal with this much sooner. I think it's absurd that Hillary said she won't settle for anything less than no Obama votes for Michigan. Oddly, even with that, there is no way she's gonna get this.

I have to say I predicted she'd have handled this much more diplomatically. I was entirely wrong. I figured the rather harder arguments would end as the outcome became more apparent, but it seems she's ramped up the rhetoric. I'll admit I expected better. At some point, whether or not you think you're the better candidate, you have to accept fate and start worrying about the general. That time has come. As you said "you better think of a way to fix this problem we're creating" seems to be the current argument.

I didn't specifically mean that one. Just that kind of stuff. I never really held out much hope for a revote that I can remember. I did hope they would come up with some more reasonable way to deal with this much sooner. I think it's absurd that Hillary said she won't settle for anything less than no Obama votes for Michigan. Oddly, even with that, there is no way she's gonna get this.

I have to say I predicted she'd have handled this much more diplomatically. I was entirely wrong. I figured the rather harder arguments would end as the outcome became more apparent, but it seems she's ramped up the rhetoric. I'll admit I expected better. At some point, whether or not you think you're the better candidate, you have to accept fate and start worrying about the general. That time has come. As you said "you better think of a way to fix this problem we're creating" seems to be the current argument.

This is what I've been saying, though. There is nothing in the narrative she has created for herself that gives her a way out of this thing. Even her perceived outs are just traps, really. She gets what she wants out of Florida and Michigan it still doesn't win her the nomination, but now it validates her popular vote math-so it's not an out, it's actually a reason to fight on. She hasn't left herself a way out and has now made her problem the party's. It will dismantle the last shreds of goodwill that she and her husband has built (lets be honest, it is that goodwill that keeps the party from tossing her out on her ear) and will either take a lot of humble work or my previously predicted coup to recoup.

This is what I've been saying, though. There is nothing in the narrative she has created for herself that gives her a way out of this thing. Even her perceived outs are just traps, really. She gets what she wants out of Florida and Michigan it still doesn't win her the nomination, but now it validates her popular vote math-so it's not an out, it's actually a reason to fight on. She hasn't left herself a way out and has now made her problem the party's. It will dismantle the last shreds of goodwill that she and her husband has built (lets be honest, it is that goodwill that keeps the party from tossing her out on her ear) and will either take a lot of humble work or my previously predicted coup to recoup.

The worst part is she hasn't created any kind of an outcome that doesn't either just steal the election from Obama or leaves it looking like she was forced out. By every measure, she lost. When the supers follow the delegate outcome, how could that ever be considered stealing it from her? Yet, with the way she's painting it, some people actually think she's being denied.

Here's a prediction for the next 2-3 pages of this thread: mental masturbation and exchanges of "We're better than you"'s followed by CH bitching, followed by bitching about his bitching, and back to mental masturbation. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Here's a prediction for the next 2-3 pages of this thread: mental masturbation and exchanges of "We're better than you"'s followed by CH bitching, followed by bitching about his bitching, and back to mental masturbation. Lather, rinse, repeat.

We're trapped. I absolutely would love for another side to show up. Unfortunately, the demographics that support Obama and the demographics of this forum happen to coincide. It's not like we knew that when we signed up.

Here's a prediction for the next 2-3 pages of this thread: mental masturbation and exchanges of "We're better than you"'s followed by CH bitching, followed by bitching about his bitching, and back to mental masturbation. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Mmm, mental masturbation...

Any fans of Morrigan?

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.
If I could vote, I certainly would be torn. I would never vote Republican....they just aren't my type.

Earlier, I believe I stated that I wanted a Democrat to win the White House (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13452473&postcount=782)and of course I wanted that to be Hillary. I thought that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the absolute best bet. That is not going to happen.

If Obama's running mate is Hillary, I could support that, although I now have more reservations about Obama then I did before.

If Obama's running mate is anyone else, then I do believe that I would vote 3rd party......probably Nader.

Let me explain.

Obama dropped down a notch when he talked about fighting a "war we need to win". Visions of Pakistan battlefields start to dance in my head. He is vowing to continue to fight Bush's war against terrorism. Bad move. I believe that more Americans will die in unnecessary war(s) then will die as a result of a McCain Presidency.

Note: I am personally affected by US foreign policy since my step-son just enlisted in the US Air Force.

Obama's vision of himself as a "transformative" (we can change the world type) President reeks of elitism and idealism, especially when he talked about appealing to Republicans whilst talking down about Clinton's achievements. His negative talk about Clinton rubbed me the wrong way.

Obama's pastor helped bring my thoughts about Obama down yet another notch.

The icing on the cake was all the trash talking by the Obama supporters here on this thread and on too many blogs. They have called Hillary every name under the sun from vagina, to whore, to witch, to hag, to racist, to Billary, to communist, to Clinthullu, to bitch, etc. What Obama supporters fail to recognize is that no matter how great their idol Obama is, Hillary has garnered an equal amount of votes. Obama can't win without those votes in November, yet Obama supporters carry on with the hatred of Hillary campaign.

Personally speaking, I think Democrats have personally screwed their chances for a Democrat President. Too much hatred, too much vindictiveness, too many Republicans voting in Democratic nominating elections. Toss in the fiasco of Michigan and Florida and that spells defeat.

*snip*
It's interesting how your claim that Obama can't win were the same reasons we suggested that Hillary should concede, but you disagreed. It's also interesting that the reasons he can't win keep changing, but you've been saying he can't win before most of the reasons you gave were known about. Methinks these are not the reasons for the conclusion.

Hillary Clinton has also vowed to continue the war on terror. You support her. Again, forgive me if I think the claim is less than geniune.

Obama's pastor? Seriously? I expected better.

Obama has said MANY, MANY more nice things about Clinton than the other way around. At one point Hillary started siding with Republicans against him in an obvious and incredibly political ploy about gas. Add in that she is now citing Rove as a good argument for the strength of her candidacy.

Why is Hillary relevant? Because you support her, though she's at least equally militarily agressive, at least equally aggressively insulting, and at least equally guilty by association. It seems to be a clear double-standard. More like an excuse for more venom.

As far as how you were treated by supporters, I keep hearing this reason and it's just nonsense. Obama supporters are not Obama. I don't appreciate the nicknames either, particularly the idiotic "Hitlery" and "Clinthulu". I also don't like that some Clinton supporters suggest Obama is a Muslim or stress his middle name. I don't like that he wasn't black enough then he was too black. I don't like any of that. It would be hypocritical to not support Clinton because of it.

Honestly, this post highlights exactly how intellectually dishonest the debate has become. And, no, I'm not talking about you, CH. I've seen people attacking her for very similar points. If I were attacking Hillary on the same points and claiming they were a reason not to vote for her, I would expect to be called to carpet on it. It would complete denial of how very similar they are on policy. Their votes coincided 95% of the time. And it's funny how no matter how much either of us can point out that they are similar on each of these points, nobody's opinion ever changes.

Hell, I'll bet the guy who said he went pro-Hillary when the Kennedys endorsed Obama didn't switch when he was told more Kennedys are endorsing Clinton. It's all the same.

Person 1: Obama is a bad guy for being endorsed by Kennedys.
Person 2: Clinton is endorsed by more.

No reply from person 1 and no change. It's searching for excuses for a conclusion that's already in hand.

I think there is some cryptosexism in the response to Clinton. Not just some. Lots of it. And I think there is some cryptoracism in the response to Obama. If not, why is it so hard for people to either support both, or support neither, when they are so similar. And if not that, to provide real substantive reasons that don't apply equally to both.

I seriously wish we had a whole thread for whining about namecalling. Because every time he is losing an argument, he starts up with this namecalling nonsense. I'm telling you, the next reply and I'm going back and finding thread after thread where his entire response was to attack a poster and nothing else.

I'll give you an example. In one thread, the poster started it saying they had switched from totally pro-Obama to totally pro-Clinton as a result of the Kennedy endorsements. You replied by posting an article that showed more Kennedys had endorsed Clinton. Here was his reply.
Insert actual dialogue from said thread:

More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky.

Quite a bag of tricks you have there CTOAN? It would appear that you will go to any length to support your man?

o_O

He... made three members of the Kennedy family support Clinton and write about it in the LAT?

Or, wait, no, he made Risottia say he didn't like a candidate because he was supported by two members of the Kennedy family?

He sneakily introduced the "post link" button to NSG?

It must have been something like that, judging from your post.

Exactly! CH are you feeling well lately? You seemed to have lost your edge in debates.

And your willing to ignore facts and logical thinking and valid arguements people make in order to support your tranny.

Its CH. It happens to him when he can't win an argument.

Wow, dude, you have fucking lost it.

Both candidates are supported by Kennedys, and pointing that out makes me a 'at any lengths' Obama supporter? Seriously, man, you've gone off the fucking rails. I haven't seen this kind of self delusion in fucking Bush supporters. Get a grip, dude.

i'm kinda hoping its all just some sort of elaborate work of performance art

Heh...waiting for Risottia and Canuckheaven to come back to the thread....:p

CH seems to have taken to Corny's old run away on loosing...
You wonder why I didn't bother posting anymore in the thread? I ask two lousy questions and look at the fallout.

That was the entirety of his contribution to that thread. To come in and attack you. He doesn't even address your very reasonable argument or comment. Just attack you. Considering he's complaining at referring to a response as a goldfish response, one has to wonder what standard he wants to be placed on what "attacks" are relevant and what aren't.
I figure that CTOAN reply was more of an attack? The others felt compelled to tag along for fun?

At what point does it become necessary to point out that the poster, and not just the posts, are a problem. Every time an argument doesn't go his way, he disappears or he claims it's namecalling or something else and simply derails the argument altogether. He drops arguments. He posts fallacies. He selectively presents evidence and when he's called on, he does one of the aforementioned.
Wow!! I ask Hek to back up his claim, you sidetrack the debate by dumping on me then you chide me because I take offense to your name calling. Now you want to claim that it is me that is derailing this debate, that I am dropping arguments, and posting fallacies, etc. You are trying to jusify your personal attack and then you throw in a few more for good measure.

I'm happy to leave it to just be debate, but he intentionally obscures the debate in this, this nonsense.
It is nonsense....your nonsense. You don't want debate. I stated that Hek's link and your links do not support his claim. They don't. Instead of trying to prove me wrong, you continue to claim that it is I that is “obscuring the debate”. Wow. You want to blame me.

I'll tell you what. Someone, anyone tell me that this stuff about goldfish is just a reasonable aspect of debate and I'll concede right now. Until then it just looks to me like more of the "how dare you actually make a point I can't rebutt" that you see in the thread I just linked to.
I would like you to actually rebut my claim that your links and Hek’s link do not support his earlier claim, which was:

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.
Now you have your chance to get back on track.

*snip*

Given that you've taken to flaming in response to this line of discussion and given that it was entirely made up in the first place, I'm done arguing it with you about distractions.

The entirety of the discussion that sparked your attack on CTOAN was posted in this thread. Yours wasn't just an attack, but it also didn't make any sense. If you'd like to debate that point now. I'd be happy to. If CTOAN starts whining about people insulting him, I'll be the first to quote that quote and point out the hypocrisy of that. Until then....

Meanwhile, let's discuss the actual substantive points that were available before you personally attacked CTOAN. Why isn't a post that offers that more Kennedys have endorsed Clinton relevant in a thread about how a poster doesn't like Obama because some of the Kennedys have endorsed him? Go ahead, let's hit on the actual substance of that debate. Because at the time you didn't. You made an attack that didn't resemble sense according to any meaning of the word.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.
More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky.
Quite a bag of tricks you have there CTOAN? It would appear that you will go to any length to support your man?

So, now let's pretend we can retract your attack and the attacks in response.

The reason for the swap? The Kennedys.
As soon as the Kennedys voiced their support for Obama, I changed my mind. I can't bring myself to trust them. The name "Kennedy" reminds me of US invasion of Vietnam and the Pigs' Bay.

Meh.
More Kennedys support Clinton (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story).

Maybe you should make your decisions on something less shaky.

Here you go. Clean slate. Give a reasonable reply. The first one in addition to being an attack doesn't make any sense. Let's all rise above. Offer a reply to what was actually said. His was reasonable, and entirely addressed the topic about a lack of Kennedy endorsements being a reason to support Clinton. This was one of the first replies that really started things off the rails. You can change history. Stay on the rails. Your move.

You don't remember Heikoku 2's claim (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720008&postcount=968)?

The links provided by both you and Heikoku 2 did not support his claim.

Amusing. So you're seriously claiming there have been no links in this thread that support that claim. Really?

And my link most certainly DID support that claim. I'm sorry if you're having difficulty, but you put up a link that compared them in popular vote. I demonstrated that when looking at all of the polls, that it wasn't true. I wonder how you define "support".

It appears that you don't want debate. It appears that you are the one who sidetracked my discussion with Heikoku 2 regarding his claim, by posting this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720085&postcount=971).

Now, where were we....oh yeah.....Heikoku 2 was going to support his claim that:

Done and done. Let me know when you have a substantive reply. Right now, you're not fooling anyone.

Let's go back to your link claiming it addresses his claim.

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?

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.

You're right. It's not as if I linked to a direct comparison of the bulk of the recent polls. Now, of course, instead of actually addressing his argument, what you're going to do now is address the hyperbole. Because, God forbid, you actually sit down with us and have a reasonable discussion.



And while we're having debates, let's get back to those predictions pre-ST.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409895&postcount=61
Watch her fly on Super Tuesday. :D

Lalala.

I've already addressed that topic. Right before you told me to go fuck myself. If you're interested in ration debate now, please feel free. My response is still available for addressing.

I've already addressed that topic. Right before you told me to go fuck myself. If you're interested in ration debate now, please feel free. My response is still available for addressing.
I never asked you to go do a physical impossibility, I directed you a site that asked you if you wanted to buy a vowel. Something along the line of you didn't call me a goldfish, only that I gave a goldfish "response", which by the way CTOAN so nicely explained as:

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.
The sad part is that you put this "goldfish response" gem in your very first post to me today. Poor goldfish......devoured by the shark.

You took the thread in the direction that you wanted to take it.

Let's follow along:

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:



3. Interesting tidbit #2:


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?

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.

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"?

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

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.
That is what happened....then it got worse.

I'm not playing your game, Canuck. Everyone saw you tell me to go fuck myself. You're behaving like a child. I'm not going to indulge it further.

Referring to the substance of your response and it's denial of previous evidence is as much a personal attack as strawman or any other substantive assessement of a reply.

I'm not playing your game, Canuck. Everyone saw you tell me to go fuck myself. You're behaving like a child. I'm not going to indulge it further.

You could just put him on ignore...you clearly won't miss any substantive debate.

If CTOAN starts whining about people insulting him, I'll be the first to quote that quote and point out the hypocrisy of that. Until then....
.

Nah, I'm good, I was not insulting CH or Clinton or the Kennedys', I was insulting that dude for using such a flimsy and stupid reason for picking his candidate. At the time I was leaning towards a candidate I knew didn't have a chance, was leary about Clinton largely due to some misconceptions (and I knew that what I 'knew' about her was more or less hearsay- but that's why I enter these discussions, to test what I know) and I wanted to find out more about Obama. At the time I hadn't really gotten on board, I was still poking around. If you go back, you find me defending Clinton and even CH. It was the way she ran her campaign, and especially the 180 on Michigan and Florida, that set me-but mostly it was things like diplomacy and transparency.

When CH pulled that move it was a back breaker, it was so irrational, so out of left field that I really only had one reaction.

Plus, you know, I'd rather not get dragged into a whine fest about who the biggest meanies are. The sad thing is that there isn't anything going on right now, just a lot of needling crap.

The RFK thing? It's stupid. Not only was the primary process in 1968 wwwwaaaaaayyyy different, only what? 13 states had primaries and the rest were what we would call super delegates today. She means "RFK [was still campaigning] when he was shot in California." But for 'some' reason she leaves out the relevant part of the sentence and leaves it implied. We've had a pushed up primary season, so if we were in the same place in the primary contest as they were in June of 1968 it'd be like March. All of the instances where she points out the fight going long are years in which the Democrats got trounced except 1992, where CH is fond of pointing out there was a strong third party candidate that bled votes form HW.

Why tacit the campaigning in the RFK instance? Why bring that up at all? Does she really think that if she drops out now and Obama is assasinated they'll go, "Nah, I don't think Clinton wants it anymore..." It's a stupid comparison even if she means that someone might shoot Obama.

And then she tries to blame it being a problem on Obama. For fucks sake.

And Obama has disappointed me too. He himself has done what he should have done, "Look, this is stupid. I'm not worried about it." But his campaign sends out transcripts of the Keith Obermann commentary. Yes, it makes a good deal of hash over Clinton's history of statements and calls people on giving her a pass on it in the same way she used a SNL skit to call the media on the pass she felt Obama was getting, but the main subject of Obermann's editorial was the RFK comment, and if you're on the podium going, "It's nothing," and your people are sending out a transcript that says it's something, that's trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

So it's a bad show all around. But mostly it's stupid. And it's all thats happening right now, so we've taken to filling the time squabbling about who is the meanest. Earlier today I did the unthinkable and read through the comments on an article linked in RCP. The attitude and bile on both sides of the fight is so nauseating that any side trying to claim moral high ground over the other about faceless 'supporters' is cartoonish. If one were to decide their candidate based on their supporters I'd have to stay home.

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.

This is the last post on that issue. They talk about the debate argument that requires a poster to reoffer evidence that was already ignored. It's as much a comment on the poster as a strawman is calling a person a liar.

You could just put him on ignore...you clearly won't miss any substantive debate.

Ignore it. He's trying to avoid debate and he's clearly baiting at this point. I've given up on trying to fix this on my own. Please, no one else entertain the distractions. Let's focus on the debate, whether he joins in or not.

I'm not playing your game, Canuck. Everyone saw you tell me to go fuck myself. You're behaving like a child. I'm not going to indulge it further.

Referring to the substance of your response and it's denial of previous evidence is as much a personal attack as strawman or any other substantive assessement of a reply.
No, it is not my game. It is your game. You play it all the time. It appears that you can hand it out like it is cotton candy, and seem to thrive when the others tag along, but you sure can't take anything in return. It speaks volumes about you.

I take your inability or reluctance to pick up the thread where I state that your links do not validate Heikoku 2's claim as an admission that my counter claim was indeed correct.

If you want a real debate....drop the pretentious nonsense, and then it just might work.

You don't remember Heikoku 2's claim (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720008&postcount=968)?

The links provided by both you and Heikoku 2 did not support his claim.

Amusing. So you're seriously claiming there have been no links in this thread that support that claim. Really?

And my link most certainly DID support that claim. I'm sorry if you're having difficulty, but you put up a link that compared them in popular vote. I demonstrated that when looking at all of the polls, that it wasn't true. I wonder how you define "support".


\It appears that you don't want debate. It appears that you are the one who sidetracked my discussion with Heikoku 2 regarding his claim, by posting this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720085&postcount=971).

Now, where were we....oh yeah.....Heikoku 2 was going to support his claim that:

Done and done. Let me know when you have a substantive reply. Right now, you're not fooling anyone.

Let's go back to your link claiming it addresses his claim.

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?

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.

You're right. It's not as if I linked to a direct comparison of the bulk of the recent polls. Now, of course, instead of actually addressing his argument, what you're going to do now is address the hyperbole. Because, God forbid, you actually sit down with us and have a reasonable discussion.



And while we're having debates, let's get back to those predictions pre-ST.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409895&postcount=61
Watch her fly on Super Tuesday. :D

Lalala.
STILL waiting for a reply. I've gone back to where you requested three times now. Your move.

No, it is not my game. It is your game. You play it all the time. It appears that you can hand it out like it is cotton candy, and seem to thrive when the others tag along, but you sure can't take anything in return. It speaks volumes about you.

I take your inability or reluctance to pick up the thread where I state that your links do not validate Heikoku 2's claim as an admission that my counter claim was indeed correct.

If you want a real debate....drop the pretentious nonsense, and then it just might work.

CH, I'm asking this because I'm trying to dig through the thread and I can't find it, I'm not trying to get in your face, I'd just like an honest answer.

Did you actually tell Jocabia to go fuck himself?

CH, I'm asking this because I'm trying to dig through the thread and I can't find it, I'm not trying to get in your face, I'd just like an honest answer.

Did you actually tell Jocabia to go fuck himself?
Technically, he asked him if he wanted to buy a vowel-

I found a site. Rehash this (http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/funny/buy-a-vowel.jpg).

Technically, he asked him if he wanted to buy a vowel-

Oh, man....that seems like an unnecessarily puerile escalation from Jocabia's goldfish bit.

CH seems to get more flamey the more data Jocabia shovels out there.

Wonder what he'll do if the Bamanator gets the nom, then the confetti...

Let's just stick to the subject, please. Don't let him continue to derail the thread with this silliness.

I've posted my reply many times. He's welcome to go back to go and try focusing on the debate.

I also reposted where the vitriol began and offered for us to go back to before it started. I literally have read through every thread. He is correct that the replies to his personal attack on CTOAN were venomous. We can all try and start over a bit, because this isn't of benefit to anyone. So ignore his flames and let's stick to the comment

For the record, CTOAN, your reply about Kennedy was absolutely relevant to point. It seems that some people on both sides look for evidence to support the conclusion in hand. Are others noticing this phenomena as well? I'll give the example of Obama saying he's going to continue the war on terror. There is no candidate suggesting they will withdraw from Afghanistan or refuse to follow terrorists over the border and the current administration does it. It's obvious choosing a candidate based on something that is true of all of the candidates is arbitrary.

EDIT: CTOAN, TG.

Let's just stick to the subject, please. Don't let him continue to derail the thread with this silliness.

I've posted my reply many times. He's welcome to go back to go and try focusing on the debate.

I also reposted where the vitriol began and offered for us to go back to before it started. I literally have read through every thread. He is correct that the replies to his personal attack on CTOAN were venomous. We can all try and start over a bit, because this isn't of benefit to anyone. So ignore his flames and let's stick to the comment

For the record, CTOAN, your reply about Kennedy was absolutely relevant to point. It seems that some people on both sides look for evidence to support the conclusion in hand. Are others noticing this phenomena as well? I'll give the example of Obama saying he's going to continue the war on terror. There is no candidate suggesting they will withdraw from Afghanistan or refuse to follow terrorists over the border and the current administration does it. It's obvious choosing a candidate based on something that is true of all of the candidates is arbitrary.

EDIT: CTOAN, TG.

First off, there are a number of candidates that have expressly stated they will end all funding, planning, and execution of the war on terror.

The Elder Gods Party, the God's Final Law Party, the Jews R Suxorz Party, and several others are fielding very, very, very viable candidates who will end the war on terror. Very.


Second, calling CTOAN a she-male is just adolescent, and I truly believe you can do better, Jocabia. Go fuck yourself.

EDIT: CTOAN, TG.
Oh right, I have a nation...handled.

In a shocking turn of events. Hillary plays the victim (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/bill.clinton.mon/index.html):

(CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, and suggested some were trying to "push and pressure and bully" superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.

"I can't believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out," Clinton said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by ABC News.

Clinton also suggested some were trying to "cover up" Sen. Clinton's chances of winning in key states that Democrats will have to win in the general election.

" 'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.' "

Clinton did not expound on who he was accusing. Video Watch Clinton talk about the "cover up." »

The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate.

"She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence," Clinton said. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

"Her only position was, 'Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win, but let's let everybody vote, and count every vote,' " he said.

The former president suggested that if the New York senator ended the primary season with an edge in the popular vote, it would be a significant development.

"If you vote for her and she does well in Montana and she does well in Puerto Rico, when this is over she will be ahead in the popular vote," Clinton said.

"And they're trying to get her to cry uncle before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do in Florida and Michigan," which Clinton said the party would need to do "unless we want to lose the election."

The current requirement to claim the Democratic presidential nomination is 2,026 delegates, a formula that does not take into account delegates from Florida and Michigan, whose contests were not sanctioned by the party because they moved them up earlier on the primary calendar.

But if those votes were counted as cast, Hillary Clinton would still trail rival Barack Obama in the overall delegate count.

The former president said Sunday that the media had unfairly attacked his wife since the Iowa caucuses, repeating an often-used charge that press coverage had made him feel as though he were living in a "fun house."
advertisement

"If you notice, there hasn't been a lot of publicity on these polls I just told you about," he said. "It is the first time you've heard it? Why do you think that is? Why do you think? Don't you think if the polls were the reverse and he was winning the Electoral College against Senator McCain and Hillary was losing it, it would be blasted on every television station?"

He added, "You would know it wouldn't you? It wouldn't be a little secret. And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes. ... She will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't."

I say give Hillary Florida, it will only give Obama enough delegates to reach the number of 2025 with still afew delegates left over.

And whats the deal with self proclaimed Libertarians who say they will vote for McCain? i have been seen plenty of thse fakes online lately, look I know there is a great dislike by libertarians on liberal politics but I dont think theres any excuse to vote for Mcsame if your a true libertarian especially if theres a libertarian running. I dont like these fake libertarians and independents, just trying to sound more credible. Theres nothing worse than a faker.

Anybody feel the same way?

I say give Hillary Florida, it will only give Obama enough delegates to reach the number of 2025 with still afew delegates left over.

And whats the deal with self proclaimed Libertarians who say they will vote for McCain? i have been seen plenty of thse fakes online lately, look I know there is a great dislike by libertarians on liberal politics but I dont think theres any excuse to vote for Mcsame if your a true libertarian especially if theres a libertarian running. I dont like these fake libertarians and independents, just trying to sound more credible. Theres nothing worse than a faker.

Anybody feel the same way?

You forgot that if Florida is included, the winning number goes up too. ;)

CH, why don't you buy a vowel here:

Y _ _ h_v_ n_ p_ _nt b_s_d_s try_ng t_ d_r_ _l th_ _rg_m_nt by cl_ _m_ng t_ h_v_ b_ _n fl_m_d, _ll th_ wh_l_ thr_w_ng _t _v_ry_n_ _ls_ m_ch, m_ch w_rs_ st_ff.

_ _nsw_r_d y_ _r p_st by sh_w_ng _n_ m_r_ p_ll th_t s_pp_rt_d my p_ _nt, b_s_d_s th_ _th_r s_v_r_l p_lls sh_wn by _v_ry_n_ _ls_. Y_ _ st_ll d_dn't _nsw_r th_m.

By th_ w_y, _f _ w_r_ t_ _s_ th_s "b_y _ v_w_l" cr_p t_ "n_t fl_m_" s_m_ _n_, _ w_ _ld l_k_ly b_ w_rn_d _r b_nn_d. F_r fl_m_ng. _nd w_th g_ _d r_ _s_n, t_ _. B_c_ _s_ _t _s fl_m_ng.

S_, wh_t _x_ctly _s y_ _r p_ _nt?

In a shocking turn of events. Hillary plays the victim (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/bill.clinton.mon/index.html):

When your campaign starts claiming there is a grand conspiracy against you, it's time to give up the ghost. Clinton, there is a grand conspiracy. People conspired to steal the nomination from her. Those people are called voters.

When your campaign starts claiming there is a grand conspiracy against you, it's time to give up the ghost. Clinton, there is a grand conspiracy. People conspired to steal the nomination from her. Those people are called voters.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/erotictophat/borat_nice.jpg

When your campaign starts claiming there is a grand conspiracy against you, it's time to give up the ghost. Clinton, there is a grand conspiracy. People conspired to steal the nomination from her. Those people are called voters.

Well it's the same thing the Clintons have done for years. Back when Bill was in charge it was the great conservative conspiracy in the media to demonize him. Fast forward to Hillary's campaign and it's all the moderators picking on her. Then it's the media dog piling on her. Now it's a conspiracy by the unnamed and faceless.

Learn a new tune.

Well it's the same thing the Clintons have done for years. Back when Bill was in charge it was the great conservative conspiracy in the media to demonize him. Fast forward to Hillary's campaign and it's all the moderators picking on her. Then it's the media dog piling on her. Now it's a conspiracy by the unnamed and faceless.

Learn a new tune.

I'm currently unemployed. Think, after the Clintons are out, there'll be an opening for professional victim?

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.


You know, the "we shouldn't vote for Obama because some other people are racist" bit never really held much water with me.

You know, the "we shouldn't vote for Obama because some other people are racist" bit never really held much water with me.

Especially from the person that claimed that "using race as a factor not to vote for him isn't racist".

You know, the "we shouldn't vote for Obama because some other people are racist" bit never really held much water with me.

Isn't it interesting how that tune changes as his purpose changes?

I never asked you to go do a physical impossibility, I directed you a site that asked you if you wanted to buy a vowel. Something along the line of you didn't call me a goldfish, only that I gave a goldfish "response", which by the way CTOAN so nicely explained as:


The sad part is that you put this "goldfish response" gem in your very first post to me today. Poor goldfish......devoured by the shark.

You took the thread in the direction that you wanted to take it.

Let's follow along: Whether you like the goldfish line or not it still holds true.

We post numerous links indicating our positions. You make a request for this information. Let's discuss what happens next. 1. You are suddenly MIA and do not respond. 2. When you do come back you make a post selectively using polls that favor your side. 3. We tell you to go back and look at the links we provided? 4. You say something to the effect of "what links?" 5. We tell you we're not reposting them yet again. 6. You come back and say "what stats are you talking about? 7. We get pissed because you want us to redo work we've already done. 8. You continue the same thing and we let some negative words slip. 9. You play the victim and act like you aren't part of the cause. How'd I do everyone?












That is what happened....then it got worse.

Here you go Sonny. I'll try to be darn tootin nice to you when I reply.

If Obama's running mate is anyone else, then I do believe that I would vote 3rd party......probably Nader.

Is Nader officially running?

Obama dropped down a notch when he talked about fighting a "war we need to win". Visions of Pakistan battlefields start to dance in my head. He is vowing to continue to fight Bush's war against terrorism. Bad move. I believe that more Americans will die in unnecessary war(s) then will die as a result of a McCain Presidency.

Seriously?

Pretty much every presidential candidate has stated that we need to be going after Osama bin Laden. Clinton has said it. McCain has said it. Even Ron Paul said it.

You aren't going to find a single candidate who will say, "You know what? I don't care about terrorism at all."

Obama's vision of himself as a "transformative" (we can change the world type) President reeks of elitism and idealism, especially when he talked about appealing to Republicans whilst talking down about Clinton's achievements. His negative talk about Clinton rubbed me the wrong way.

Can you be both elitist and idealist? It seems to me that the two conflict.

And why is trying to appeal to the entire electorate instead of divisively only caring about your own little segment a bad thing?

The icing on the cake was all the trash talking by the Obama supporters here on this thread and on too many blogs. They have called Hillary every name under the sun from vagina, to whore, to witch, to hag, to racist, to Billary, to communist, to Clinthullu, to bitch, etc. What Obama supporters fail to recognize is that no matter how great their idol Obama is, Hillary has garnered an equal amount of votes. Obama can't win without those votes in November, yet Obama supporters carry on with the hatred of Hillary campaign.

Because the vitriol from Clinton supporters has been any less evident? People get worked up about politics. You see vitriol. Pretending that this is somehow a phenomenon restricted to those who support Obama is rather silly.

And Obama has disappointed me too. He himself has done what he should have done, "Look, this is stupid. I'm not worried about it." But his campaign sends out transcripts of the Keith Obermann commentary.

Did they? I'm on mailing lists, etc. and I haven't seen that. Was it something localized?

And whats the deal with self proclaimed Libertarians who say they will vote for McCain? i have been seen plenty of thse fakes online lately, look I know there is a great dislike by libertarians on liberal politics but I dont think theres any excuse to vote for Mcsame if your a true libertarian especially if theres a libertarian running. I dont like these fake libertarians and independents, just trying to sound more credible. Theres nothing worse than a faker.

Is there a libertarian running? I don't count Bob Barr. He's a right-wing economist, not a libertarian.

Here you go Sonny. I'll try to be darn tootin nice to you when I reply.

I dispute that actually. No one got pissed. We debated. Until a flame came out. That's all that happened. Now, let's let it drop.

Did they? I'm on mailing lists, etc. and I haven't seen that. Was it something localized?

It was to the press.

I never received a response to my question of earlier. If Clinton scores big in some of the remaining primaries and comes out on top of the popular vote (with Florida included), then what is the verdict of Barack Obama's supporters? I think if Obama gets the nod even though Clinton gets more votes then we have a serious problem in the Democratic Party. We were furious in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. I can't imagine anything good coming out of such a split decision here.

I never received a response to my question of earlier. If Clinton scores big in some of the remaining primaries and comes out on top of the popular vote (with Florida included), then what is the verdict of Barack Obama's supporters? I think if Obama gets the nod even though Clinton gets more votes then we have a serious problem in the Democratic Party. We were furious in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. I can't imagine anything good coming out of such a split decision here.

That's a fairly unlikely circumstance. She's trailing fairly far in votes now is she not? All the more reason for her to drop out now in my mind. She might win the popular vote, but that's now how the game is played. Though I can see her lobbying until the general election to change it.

I never received a response to my question of earlier. If Clinton scores big in some of the remaining primaries and comes out on top of the popular vote (with Florida included), then what is the verdict of Barack Obama's supporters? I think if Obama gets the nod even though Clinton gets more votes then we have a serious problem in the Democratic Party. We were furious in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. I can't imagine anything good coming out of such a split decision here.

So, let me get this straight:

After arguing, previously, that superdelegates and even PLEDGED ones should ignore the popular vote, as you, on behalf of Clinton, did, you're now arguing that they should acquiesce to it, including in it a state in which name recognition played most of the role, with neither campaigning and many people not even voting due to thinking it useless, and, quite possibly, another state where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

What changed?

Besides, you know, convenience?

That's a fairly unlikely circumstance. She's trailing fairly far in votes now is she not? All the more reason for her to drop out now in my mind. She might win the popular vote, but that's now how the game is played. Though I can see her lobbying until the general election to change it.

It is unlikely yet possible. She trails him by only a few hundred thousand votes at most, depending on whose math you compute with. The majority of polled Democrats are saying they think she should NOT drop out (check Rasmussen's site).

As for the game, well...Obama hasn't won according to the rules of the game either, yet. He has not reached the magic number, and will not be able to with pledged delegates unless he literally blows Clinton out in the final contests. There is no "rule" in the contest that states that the candidate who has more pledged delegates should be the nominee. The superdelegates will decide...and if I was a superdelegate, and Clinton won the popular vote, that would be a very powerful argument to me regardless of how many delegates Obama has won. I think Clinton is poised better to win in the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, but that's a weaker argument because we quite frankly don't know WHO is "the winner" in November. The popular vote argument is far more powerful because it strikes to the very core of what we are as a party, and I suspect that not even the most ardent Obama supporters would feel good if he won the nomination but lost the popular vote.

Can you be both elitist and idealist? It seems to me that the two conflict.

And why is trying to appeal to the entire electorate instead of divisively only caring about your own little segment a bad thing?

I guess the larger question is how can one claim appealing to the entire electorate is elitist.

Obama: I think everyone should be involved in the solutions to the problems in our nations.
Reaction: Oh, my God, you're so elitist.

Isn't the actually elitism that we think there is something wrong with appealing to Republicans? I know we've played this game where we try to divide up the electorate in a way that gives use 50%+1 for a long time, but did we forget that the very tactics that suggest some of the electorate is more important than others is what defines elitism.

How does the candidate that was born to rich people and has always worked for rich people become the populist candidate? How does the candidate that was raised by a single mother and spend his career living in poverty and helping the impovershed become the elitist? How is it one candidate talks about how she appeals the people we need for the general, the hard-working, blue-collar white voters is not elitist? How is it that the candidate that says that certain states are more important is not elitist?

One candidate has said that every state matters, every voter, everyone, everywhere. One candidate has appealed to the voters of both of the others. One candidate has suggested a new strategy to approaching the general. If that makes him elitist, then bring on the elitism.

I never received a response to my question of earlier. If Clinton scores big in some of the remaining primaries and comes out on top of the popular vote (with Florida included), then what is the verdict of Barack Obama's supporters? I think if Obama gets the nod even though Clinton gets more votes then we have a serious problem in the Democratic Party. We were furious in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. I can't imagine anything good coming out of such a split decision here.

This would be relevant if Florida had held an actual election. Unfortunately, the party insiders chose not to allow Florida to have an actual election. As was pointed out by many before the contests took place, it was essentially a beauty contest.

There is no way to know what the popular vote actually was. Because we didn't hold a legal election there or in Michigan.

So, let me get this straight:

After arguing, previously, that superdelegates and even PLEDGED ones should ignore the popular vote, as you, on behalf of Clinton, did, you're now arguing that they should acquiesce to it, including in it a state in which name recognition played most of the role, with neither campaigning and many people not even voting due to thinking it useless, and, quite possibly, another state where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

What changed?

Besides, you know, convenience?


First off, I've been arguing the "popular vote" position for months. Since, in fact, even before Super Tuesday 2, when it became clear that Clinton was not going to catch Obama in pledged delegates.

Second, you continue hammering on the "name recognition" thing, but I think you're wrong. You're expressing an opinion, since we don't know for sure whether Obama's name was a known quantity in Florida or not at the time. My suspicion is that he was probably just as well known as Clinton because by that point he'd achieved his shocking upset in Iowa and had been all over the news for months. What you seem to be doing is reaching for an argument to keep Florida's votes out based on a nebulous claim that Obama somehow fought at a disadvantage there. Well, he DID...but his disadvantage was demographic. Florida is a state that was built for Hillary Clinton. If anything, her win there should probably have been even bigger because the demographics (particularly age) favor her strongly there.

Furthermore, you overlook the fact that Clinton was ready to hold a re-do in that state AND in Michigan. But curiously, they never managed to get that off the ground. Charges HAVE been leveled that the Obama camp deliberately dragged its' feet in order to run out the clock, knowing full well that revotes in Michigan and Florida would likely return as Clinton victories. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but it certainly is to Obama's advantage at this point to do the very un-Democratic thing and keep those states out. If they come back in, it strengthens Clinton's hand.

This would be relevant if Florida had held an actual election. Unfortunately, the party insiders chose not to allow Florida to have an actual election. As was pointed out by many before the contests took place, it was essentially a beauty contest.

There is no way to know what the popular vote actually was. Because we didn't hold a legal election there or in Michigan.

You do not know that for certain.

I do not know the exact comparisons of Florida primary elections, but I had heard that turnout was quite high compared to previous elections. That does not bespeak of an idle or uninformed electorate. That suggests people were highly motivated by these two candidates. And if that's the case, they obviously had to know some things about them.

It is unlikely yet possible. She trails him by only a few hundred thousand votes at most, depending on whose math you compute with. The majority of polled Democrats are saying they think she should NOT drop out (check Rasmussen's site).

As for the game, well...Obama hasn't won according to the rules of the game either, yet. He has not reached the magic number, and will not be able to with pledged delegates unless he literally blows Clinton out in the final contests. There is no "rule" in the contest that states that the candidate who has more pledged delegates should be the nominee. The superdelegates will decide...and if I was a superdelegate, and Clinton won the popular vote, that would be a very powerful argument to me regardless of how many delegates Obama has won. I think Clinton is poised better to win in the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, but that's a weaker argument because we quite frankly don't know WHO is "the winner" in November. The popular vote argument is far more powerful because it strikes to the very core of what we are as a party, and I suspect that not even the most ardent Obama supporters would feel good if he won the nomination but lost the popular vote.

No, it doesn't. The popular vote argument discounts the value of caucus states. If caucus states knew in advance that the popular votes would determine the election, they wouldn't caucus.

Popular vote is relevant in the general because every state has a similar contest and every state knows that it counts in advance. In fact, this is exactly why networks aren't allowed to call the contest before voting is done anymore. It's a fact that calling contests early or making them seem like they don't count affects the outcome.

In claiming we should go entirely by popular vote, you are changing the rules, particularly when you're including a state that didn't have a legal election. Discounting the states that actually followed the rules and held legal election IS disenfranchising voters. That's the problem that Clinton has created. At this point, there is no way to account for what she wants to account for. There is no outcome that won't make it appear that Clinton was either robbed or appeased.

I never received a response to my question of earlier. If Clinton scores big in some of the remaining primaries and comes out on top of the popular vote (with Florida included), then what is the verdict of Barack Obama's supporters? I think if Obama gets the nod even though Clinton gets more votes then we have a serious problem in the Democratic Party. We were furious in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. I can't imagine anything good coming out of such a split decision here.

It's not the same situation because there are no caucus' in the general election. Also, if you remember going in there was the speculation that the reverse was going to be true, that Gore would win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote. The mechanism of the electoral college was in discussion before a single ballot was cast in 2000. The real upset was the conditions of the Florida election.

By tallying caucus states in a way that they were never meant to be tallied (and in fact aren't, most caucus tallies are estimates) you create only a theoretical lead.

This is ultimately a shell game. If popular vote total was the goal then the race would have to have been set up differently, the people who made the rules (who now in large part run Clinton's campaign) would have to have provided for that. They didn't but now they're grabbing at straws.

With Florida and the caucus states Obama leads by over 270k, a number she has gotten in big states with big leads. I know that she's counting on Puerto Rico to bring that in for her with their traditionally huge turn outs and being all hispanic, but like always those gains are likely to be balanced by Obama's wins elsewhere. This would lead any popular vote edge to something fractional, and when those numbers are figured on estimates and include numbers from an uncontested illegitimate primary they do not truly represent a 'popular will' and to use it as a metric over the established and recognized one is ultimately dishonest. If she was capable of getting a convincing lead in popular vote it might be one thing-but then if she was able to do that she wouldn't be over a hundred delegates behind.

She and her campaign could have avoided such difficulty by not being the people who voted to remove Florida and Michigan's delegates, to champion their voices in September, not between their primaries when her campaign was on the ropes. As we've seen in state after state after state, campaigning makes a difference, and in an early primary, a lack of campaigning would heavily favor an establishment candidate with name recognition. To pretend that is not the case and trumpet the results as pure is dishonest.

For several reasons this primary season the popular vote metric is flawed and not comparable to the general popular vote.

So, in short, she's not capable of a definitive popular vote lead and will have to rely on shady math to create the illusion of one. There is a reason why that isn't the metric and it shouldn't be used.

You do not know that for certain.

I do not know the exact comparisons of Florida primary elections, but I had heard that turnout was quite high compared to previous elections. That does not bespeak of an idle or uninformed electorate. That suggests people were highly motivated by these two candidates. And if that's the case, they obviously had to know some things about them.

How does that address anything? I didn't say they know nothing about the candidates. The candidates did NOT campaign there. And we don't know how many voters, accepting their fate, stayed home. It wasn't a legal election and, at the time, that was clear.

First off, I've been arguing the "popular vote" position for months. Since, in fact, even before Super Tuesday 2, when it became clear that Clinton was not going to catch Obama in pledged delegates.

Second, you continue hammering on the "name recognition" thing, but I think you're wrong. You're expressing an opinion, since we don't know for sure whether Obama's name was a known quantity in Florida or not at the time. My suspicion is that he was probably just as well known as Clinton because by that point he'd achieved his shocking upset in Iowa and had been all over the news for months. What you seem to be doing is reaching for an argument to keep Florida's votes out based on a nebulous claim that Obama somehow fought at a disadvantage there. Well, he DID...but his disadvantage was demographic. Florida is a state that was built for Hillary Clinton. If anything, her win there should probably have been even bigger because the demographics (particularly age) favor her strongly there.

Furthermore, you overlook the fact that Clinton was ready to hold a re-do in that state AND in Michigan. But curiously, they never managed to get that off the ground. Charges HAVE been leveled that the Obama camp deliberately dragged its' feet in order to run out the clock, knowing full well that revotes in Michigan and Florida would likely return as Clinton victories. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but it certainly is to Obama's advantage at this point to do the very un-Democratic thing and keep those states out. If they come back in, it strengthens Clinton's hand.

1- Even your claim that Hillary somehow has a popular vote majority flies in the face of evidence in most scenarios.

2- Clinton was for punishing both Florida and Michigan before. What changed?

This would be relevant if Florida had held an actual election. Unfortunately, the party insiders chose not to allow Florida to have an actual election. As was pointed out by many before the contests took place, it was essentially a beauty contest.

There is no way to know what the popular vote actually was. Because we didn't hold a legal election there or in Michigan.

Plus, caucuses do not release the actual vote counts; all we have are estimates. The notion of the popular vote in the democratic primary is ridiculous as the rules currently stand.

STILL waiting for a reply. I've gone back to where you requested three times now. Your move.

let's see how this works out. There's no way he can say (seriously) you didn't provide the info.

Okay, lots of good points and I am running out of time, but I will try to respond to each of them.

First off, you are correct about the caucus states not being included. That said, we have some pretty good estimates about how many people were involved in each. Furthermore, many of those caucus states happen to be relatively low-population states. They aren't going to power Obama very strongly in the argument is popular vote because they don't -have- that many people in the first place.

Second, to speak of a "convincing win" in the popular vote is somewhat ironic, because in the grand scheme of things Obama's not carrying away the delegate count either. He now leads Clinton by approximately 160-190 delegates which is not all that many considering that thousands upon thousands of delegates are available in the primary system as a whole. Everybody and their brother are calling on her to cede and quit, but the truth is she's not too far from the nomination herself.

Do we then move to an argument about electability, if neither popular vote nor delegate count are sufficient? Obama started as a severe underdog and rose up to unseat Clinton as the leading candidate, and more power to him. But at every moment where he has had an opportunity to finish her off, he has failed. She continues rallying her followers in the face of near-certain defeat, and they continue to answer her call. She is more than 20$ million in debt, and yet she still manages to generate decisive wins. Every time Obama has gotten her into a bad spot, she's parried. Her staying power is so impressive that even some local Republicans have said that they can't help but admire her persistance, if not her politics. THIS is a candidate who can beat John McCain in the fall because she can withstand any punches he throws at her. And believe me, the punches are coming. McCain's boys have been talking to the Rovian attack machine. This is gonna be one ugly, nasty, badmouthing campaign. Clinton is vetted, tested. She has proven that she can play in the big leagues. I do not get that same reassuring sense from Barack Obama. I fear he will, for all his money and enthusiasm, be outmaneuvered by McCain in the general. Anyone who thinks McCain is just going to roll over and lose is fooling themselves. He is a hardened political veteran with a lot of money and a skilled team.

Her staying power is so impressive that even some local Republicans have said that they can't help but admire her persistance, if not her politics. THIS is a candidate who can beat John McCain in the fall because she can withstand any punches he throws at her. And believe me, the punches are coming. McCain's boys have been talking to the Rovian attack machine. This is gonna be one ugly, nasty, badmouthing campaign. Clinton is vetted, tested. She has proven that she can play in the big leagues. I do not get that same reassuring sense from Barack Obama. I fear he will, for all his money and enthusiasm, be outmaneuvered by McCain in the general. Anyone who thinks McCain is just going to roll over and lose is fooling themselves. He is a hardened political veteran with a lot of money and a skilled team.

So you're actually claiming that a candidate who won't give up is a better choice than one who is actually, you know, winning? One who has, time and again, fared better than Hillary against McCain? What, do you think Obama will concede the election in the middle of October while Hillary would contest it throughout March 2009?

let's see how this works out. There's no way he can say (seriously) you didn't provide the info.

_ w_nd_r _f CH w_ll r_ply t_ my "b_y _ v_w_l" p_st.

1- Even your claim that Hillary somehow has a popular vote majority flies in the face of evidence in most scenarios.

2- Clinton was for punishing both Florida and Michigan before. What changed?

Enough beating around the conversational bush. I will have a yes or no, up or down vote. Do you think completely discounting the votes of Florida and Michigan is fair to both Obama and Clinton? Furthermore, do you think it's wise electoral strategy? Some polls I have seen show McCain winning in Florida AND Michigan, possibly because of this very issue. If McCain picks off Florida and Michigan, then wins Ohio as polls suggest he can, Obama will lose in a tidal wave of red states. As Clinton put it, "Delegate math is complicated. Electoral math is not."

Isn't it interesting how that tune changes as his purpose changes?

Right, this is why we get irritated with his crap. It has nothing to do with him supporting Clinton, and all to do with the way he handles himself during a debate.

Enough beating around the conversational bush. I will have a yes or no, up or down vote. Do you think completely discounting the votes of Florida and Michigan is fair to both Obama and Clinton? Furthermore, do you think it's wise electoral strategy? Some polls I have seen show McCain winning in Florida AND Michigan, possibly because of this very issue. If McCain picks off Florida and Michigan, then wins Ohio as polls suggest he can, Obama will lose in a tidal wave of red states. As Clinton put it, "Delegate math is complicated. Electoral math is not."

I don't. However, the alternative, which was refused by the STATES of Florida and Michigan, of redoing it, not by Obama, were the only truly fair ones. Alternatively, Obama's campaign is accepting a half-sitting of the delegates, including non-committed ones in Michigan counting for him, which would be more fair due to the fact that, yes, the states broke the rules.

McCain won't pick Michigan. And I seriously doubt he can pick Florida. Most polls have McCain losing Michigan and nearly tying Florida, and that is now, BEFORE Obama can point out how much to the right McCain is.

I dispute that actually. No one got pissed. We debated. Until a flame came out. That's all that happened. Now, let's let it drop.

Agreed Joc. I will continue the destruction of the arguments.

I never received a response to my question of earlier. If Clinton scores big in some of the remaining primaries and comes out on top of the popular vote (with Florida included), then what is the verdict of Barack Obama's supporters? I think if Obama gets the nod even though Clinton gets more votes then we have a serious problem in the Democratic Party. We were furious in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. I can't imagine anything good coming out of such a split decision here.

That would be a very big if. The only way to have her come out on top of the popular vote is to allow Florida and Michigan, as they are, and to exclude 4 "unfair" caucus states. IFF she comes out in popular vote she still will not win in pledged delegates. More delegates means a stronger claim to the nomination. Since this is unlikely, I'm posting to mere hypotheticals.

So you're actually claiming that a candidate who won't give up is a better choice than one who is actually, you know, winning? One who has, time and again, fared better than Hillary against McCain? What, do you think Obama will concede the election in the middle of October while Hillary would contest it throughout March 2009?

All I have to do to respond is point to an electoral map. Michigan. Ohio. West Virginia. Florida. Arkansas. These are all states that the polls show her winning against John McCain but Barack Obama losing against John McCain. I do not dispute that Obama is a strong contender. But she is stronger in a few of the places that really, really matter. Clinton's been winning big in Appalachia. She's beat him soundly in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (even assuming you give all the uncommitted to Obama). She won narrowly in Indiana as well. Clinton appeals to demographics that make her competitive in those states, and those states will determine the winner of the election. Especially the Big Three. In 2000, the election was determined by Florida. In 2004, Ohio turned out to be the kingmaker. I LIVE in Ohio, and I can say that I don't think Obama will win here but Clinton might.

Okay, lots of good points and I am running out of time, but I will try to respond to each of them.

First off, you are correct about the caucus states not being included. That said, we have some pretty good estimates about how many people were involved in each. Furthermore, many of those caucus states happen to be relatively low-population states. They aren't going to power Obama very strongly in the argument is popular vote because they don't -have- that many people in the first place.
Except that they already do. In fact, in order to over come them to create the illusionary lead you have to include a completely uncontested state as voted turning a blind eye to the 40% of the electorate who essentially showed up to say "not you."

Second, to speak of a "convincing win" in the popular vote is somewhat ironic, because in the grand scheme of things Obama's not carrying away the delegate count either. He now leads Clinton by approximately 160-190 delegates which is not all that many considering that thousands upon thousands of delegates are available in the primary system as a whole. Everybody and their brother are calling on her to cede and quit, but the truth is she's not too far from the nomination herself.
It's only ironic if you use that singer's definition. Delegate count isn't determined like volleyball. You don't have to win 'by x amount' and if it's close you use a different metric. You have to reach 2026, with supers or pledged or a combination. Thats it. He already has the majority of pledged delegates and even if he loses the next three contests will have more over that number. Thats a win. You don't hand the Super Bowl trophy over in a close game because the team that lost by a field goal ran more yards. The measure is delegate count, and the standard is clear. To try and change it to the rather murky popular vote, and insist on the inclusion of uncontested and illegitimate primaries just doesn't work.

Do we then move to an argument about electability, if neither popular vote nor delegate count are sufficient? Obama started as a severe underdog and rose up to unseat Clinton as the leading candidate, and more power to him. But at every moment where he has had an opportunity to finish her off, he has failed. She continues rallying her followers in the face of near-certain defeat, and they continue to answer her call. She is more than 20$ million in debt, and yet she still manages to generate decisive wins. Every time Obama has gotten her into a bad spot, she's parried. Her staying power is so impressive that even some local Republicans have said that they can't help but admire her persistance, if not her politics. THIS is a candidate who can beat John McCain in the fall because she can withstand any punches he throws at her. And believe me, the punches are coming. McCain's boys have been talking to the Rovian attack machine. This is gonna be one ugly, nasty, badmouthing campaign. Clinton is vetted, tested. She has proven that she can play in the big leagues. I do not get that same reassuring sense from Barack Obama. I fear he will, for all his money and enthusiasm, be outmaneuvered by McCain in the general. Anyone who thinks McCain is just going to roll over and lose is fooling themselves. He is a hardened political veteran with a lot of money and a skilled team.
She has taken a campaign where she had the best name recognition since Kennedy, a 20 point lead in the polls, party insiders and campaign veterans, and got out campaigned by an upstart junior senator, and you think that this is an argument that she's a better campaigner? She's been making the 'vetting' argument since she began, the electability argument since she began. The voters didn't buy it. A lot did, for sure, but most of them did not. Obama went through a primary where a lot was thrown at him and he bounced back each time and continued to out-campaign the 'vetted' Clinton. It's not convincing and is not supported by the campaign that was hers to lose, which she did. That she made a losing fight a fight is not a reason to give her a W. She lost. And she lost it.

Enough beating around the conversational bush. I will have a yes or no, up or down vote. Do you think completely discounting the votes of Florida and Michigan is fair to both Obama and Clinton? Furthermore, do you think it's wise electoral strategy?

I don't see anyone saying they ought be ignored. Only that they ought be redone properly within the rules of the Democratic party. Now Hillary would love to count them as is since she got big wins there. Obama favors re-running them.

Now if Hillary's wins there are legit then a re-run would hurt her not at all. If however she was unfairly aided in those states by the fact her name was the only one on the ballot in Michigan and no one campaigned in Florida she could have issues.

Do we then move to an argument about electability, if neither popular vote nor delegate count are sufficient? Obama started as a severe underdog and rose up to unseat Clinton as the leading candidate, and more power to him. But at every moment where he has had an opportunity to finish her off, he has failed. She continues rallying her followers in the face of near-certain defeat, and they continue to answer her call. She is more than 20$ million in debt, and yet she still manages to generate decisive wins. Every time Obama has gotten her into a bad spot, she's parried. Her staying power is so impressive that even some local Republicans have said that they can't help but admire her persistance, if not her politics. THIS is a candidate who can beat John McCain in the fall.

Obama's unwillingness to completely kick Clinton out of the ring isn't weakness, its restraint. He has consistently stopped his campaign going hostile on Clinton because she is, after all, on his team. The primaries aren't about dividing the party. So to compare his treatment of Clinton to his future campaign against McCain is illogical, captain. Obama hasn't treated the primaries like the general election because the primaries AREN'T the general election

On the other hand, Clinton has admitted that she is willing to throw the "kitchen sink" to get the nomination. That'd be comendable in a general election, but when she is willing to throw the sink at someone in her own party who has brought hope to a new generation of Democrats you begin to question where her loyalties lie, especially if you think the McCain team is just waiting for any slight crack to show. Her heavy tactics are uncalled for in a primary race and shouldn't be precieved as strenghts.

Michigan. Ohio. West Virginia. Florida. Arkansas.


Several polls put Obama ahead in Michigan.

Ohio and Florida are toss-ups, and even then only now. Things will tip for Obama after he gets actual campaigning underway.

West Virginia and Arkansas both can be helped with Hillary supporting Obama as she said she would.

And Obama brings several states into play, and quite probably wins Colorado and New Mexico, besides securing Illinois.

Parried? She entered the race highly favored. When she began it was considered a given that she would win the nomination. She managed to take herself from greatly favored to unable to win. That's not parrying. I pulled out my dictionary to find a word for that. The one I found... LOSING.

She ran a TERRIBLE campaign. It was disorganized. It lost money. It had the rules wrong (at one point they thought it was winner take all). They contradicted themselves. They damaged themselves. She wants to lead the free world and she can't run a primary campaign. No, I don't think that speaks highly of her leadership.

She is still alive because the Republicans rather than attacking her have promoted her. Even then she is only barely favored. If she can squander a lead like she had for the primaries, this also does not speak highly of her chances. Not only that, but like Obama, McCain was also not favored in his bid and pulled it out.

Obama, on the other hand, is a candidate who has shown that his campaigning results in closer results in states he's losing and stronger wins in states he's winning. He has shown he can turn a loss to a win. He has shown that he can help down-ballot candidates. And he has been withstanding the Republican attack machine bolstered by the Clinton attack machine since about March. They've already thrown every attack they have at him. And he still fares very well against McCain. I wonder what happens when Clinton is backing him instead of accusing him of cheating her. Hopefully, we're about to find out.

I never received a response to my question of earlier. If Clinton scores big in some of the remaining primaries and comes out on top of the popular vote (with Florida included), then what is the verdict of Barack Obama's supporters? I think if Obama gets the nod even though Clinton gets more votes then we have a serious problem in the Democratic Party. We were furious in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. I can't imagine anything good coming out of such a split decision here.

Personally, I'm not going to see her as the better candidate simply because more people voted for her. This is especially true given how many of those people admitted to voting that way due to racism or sexism.

Meanwhile, I think it is silly to declare a problem in the process after it has occurred. If the Democrats wanted to pick a candidate based on popular vote, the time to change the process was before it began. Caucus states would have held primaries instead and the campaigning would have been quite different.

Finally, there is no way to get an accurate popular vote because of the process being what it is (not to mention two states with screwed-up elections). This means that it is not, in this particular process, a good metric. If you want it to be, you have to get rid of caucuses.

Second, you continue hammering on the "name recognition" thing, but I think you're wrong. You're expressing an opinion, since we don't know for sure whether Obama's name was a known quantity in Florida or not at the time. My suspicion is that he was probably just as well known as Clinton because by that point he'd achieved his shocking upset in Iowa and had been all over the news for months.

"Name recognition" doesn't just mean "Yeah, I've heard that name before." People associate Hillary Clinton with Bill Clinton and the years of his presidency. People who have not actually dug into it or heard him campaigning generally do not know Obama's voting history or policies. They'll go with the name they recognize and associate with certain policies before a relative unknown.

What you seem to be doing is reaching for an argument to keep Florida's votes out based on a nebulous claim that Obama somehow fought at a disadvantage there. Well, he DID...but his disadvantage was demographic.

I don't think so. I think his disadvantage was that, much like with the rest of the country, he started out as the underdog. In most of the country, he campaigned hard and actually outraced Clinton. He didn't even have that chance in Florida - where all candidates agreed not to campaign.

Furthermore, you overlook the fact that Clinton was ready to hold a re-do in that state AND in Michigan. But curiously, they never managed to get that off the ground. Charges HAVE been leveled that the Obama camp deliberately dragged its' feet in order to run out the clock, knowing full well that revotes in Michigan and Florida would likely return as Clinton victories. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but it certainly is to Obama's advantage at this point to do the very un-Democratic thing and keep those states out. If they come back in, it strengthens Clinton's hand.

Actually, having a revote in those states would have benefited Obama. They would have been able to campaign, Obama's name would have been on the ballot, and the controversy over the states would have been over. While Clinton may have still won both states, it most likely would have been by much smaller margins.

But, you know, let's characterize a wish to ensure that no one is disenfranchised by a rushed process as a conspiracy to disenfranchise people.

First off, I've been arguing the "popular vote" position for months. Since, in fact, even before Super Tuesday 2, when it became clear that Clinton was not going to catch Obama in pledged delegates.

Second, you continue hammering on the "name recognition" thing, but I think you're wrong. You're expressing an opinion, since we don't know for sure whether Obama's name was a known quantity in Florida or not at the time. My suspicion is that he was probably just as well known as Clinton because by that point he'd achieved his shocking upset in Iowa and had been all over the news for months. What you seem to be doing is reaching for an argument to keep Florida's votes out based on a nebulous claim that Obama somehow fought at a disadvantage there. Well, he DID...but his disadvantage was demographic. Florida is a state that was built for Hillary Clinton. If anything, her win there should probably have been even bigger because the demographics (particularly age) favor her strongly there.

Furthermore, you overlook the fact that Clinton was ready to hold a re-do in that state AND in Michigan. But curiously, they never managed to get that off the ground. Charges HAVE been leveled that the Obama camp deliberately dragged its' feet in order to run out the clock, knowing full well that revotes in Michigan and Florida would likely return as Clinton victories. I'm not sure if that is true or not, but it certainly is to Obama's advantage at this point to do the very un-Democratic thing and keep those states out. If they come back in, it strengthens Clinton's hand.

To agree with what you are saying we'd have to presume that the name Obama held as much recognition in January as the name of the former first lady whose husband was President for 8 years. Are you seriously trying to claim that Obama, even with a win in Iowa, held the same stature as the name "Clinton?" Sure there is no definitive way to tell, but logic should be your guide. As for his shocking win in Iowa and him being all over the news "for months..." The Florida race too place 26 days after the Iowa race. There are people even now who would say they don't know who Barack Obama is. People don't pay as much attention to politics until the end. Once there is a nominee maybe they pay more attention. If people paid more attention for longer than "sound-byte season" we would make better decisions about our leaders. We never would have had the disgrace we have now.

How would "Age" have given her more of a win? Were all the old people there suddenly not old on the 29th of January? Did they age a quarter century or more since Iowa, and suddenly they were kids like in cocoon?

All I have to do to respond is point to an electoral map. Michigan. Ohio. West Virginia. Florida. Arkansas. These are all states that the polls show her winning against John McCain but Barack Obama losing against John McCain. I do not dispute that Obama is a strong contender. But she is stronger in a few of the places that really, really matter. Clinton's been winning big in Appalachia. She's beat him soundly in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (even assuming you give all the uncommitted to Obama). She won narrowly in Indiana as well. Clinton appeals to demographics that make her competitive in those states, and those states will determine the winner of the election. Especially the Big Three. In 2000, the election was determined by Florida. In 2004, Ohio turned out to be the kingmaker. I LIVE in Ohio, and I can say that I don't think Obama will win here but Clinton might.

Actually, in 2000, Tennessee was the kingmaker. Florida was just the last to decide. Gore didn't carry his home state. A state that tends to end up behind the winner of the election.

All I have to do to respond is point to an electoral map. Michigan. Ohio. West Virginia. Florida. Arkansas. These are all states that the polls show her winning against John McCain but Barack Obama losing against John McCain. I do not dispute that Obama is a strong contender. But she is stronger in a few of the places that really, really matter. Clinton's been winning big in Appalachia. She's beat him soundly in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (even assuming you give all the uncommitted to Obama). She won narrowly in Indiana as well. Clinton appeals to demographics that make her competitive in those states, and those states will determine the winner of the election. Especially the Big Three. In 2000, the election was determined by Florida. In 2004, Ohio turned out to be the kingmaker. I LIVE in Ohio, and I can say that I don't think Obama will win here but Clinton might.

Presuming that this election will go exactly as the past two is a logical fallacy. PA will stay blue (think Rendell), Ohio is a toss up and Florida may be lost. I'll take PA over the other two and still think Obama will win for reasons I've mentioned before. If Obama wins PA, MI (he will) , and OH it's all over but the crying. He can still put together an impressive win across the board.

There are people even now who would say they don't know who Barack Obama is.

And 11% are still convinced he's a Muslim! *gasp*

1 in 5 white voters cited Obama's name as a reason for their unfavorable opinion of him. "He got a funny name that sounds sort of like Osama. He must be evil, right?"

In truth, the fact that he has overcome these sorts of things in the primaries says a lot about how strong a candidate he really is.

How would "Age" have given her more of a win? Were all the old people there suddenly not old on the 29th of January? Did they age a quarter century or more since Iowa, and suddenly they were kids like in cocoon?

Older voters do tend to go Clinton's way. I think Shal was pointing out that there are a lot of elderly voters in Florida, and that Clinton would thus be likely to win even in an actual election that involved campaigning.

So who wants to put in your vote for who you think VP should be?

http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=VPOTUS0508

You get to rank your favorites here. Though he wasn't my first choice, so far my vote went to Edwards according to their system which might change depending on what others pick.

I found it from here: http://the-vigil.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-should-be-barack-obamas-vice.html, where they give a short blurb about each potential VP

And 11% are still convinced he's a Muslim! *gasp*

1 in 5 white voters cited Obama's name as a reason for their unfavorable opinion of him. "He got a funny name that sounds sort of like Osama. He must be evil, right?"

In truth, the fact that he has overcome these sorts of things in the primaries says a lot about how strong a candidate he really is.



Older voters do tend to go Clinton's way. I think Shal was pointing out that there are a lot of elderly voters in Florida, and that Clinton would thus be likely to win even in an actual election that involved campaigning.

Ah, but that's not what he claimed:

What you seem to be doing is reaching for an argument to keep Florida's votes out based on a nebulous claim that Obama somehow fought at a disadvantage there. Well, he DID...but his disadvantage was demographic. Florida is a state that was built for Hillary Clinton. If anything, her win there should probably have been even bigger because the demographics (particularly age) favor her strongly there.

He states that her victory there should have been even bigger. Being that it wasn't that big should show a weakness, rather than what Shal perceives as a strength. Showing that she did weaker than she should have, even with the name recognition thing, is better for our argument than it is hers.

*snip*

I think there is no fair solution to all parties. It's unfortunate that FL and MI didn't follow the rules and then made it the rest of the nation's problem. I think at this point, the best they can do has already been offered. MI should go with exit polls as they presented it. Unfortunately, Clinton's team turned down this solution. They have said they will accept no outcome that gives delegates, any delegates, to Obama. So much enfranchisement, huh?

For Florida it should also be counted as is. In both cases, honestly, they should just deliver a percentage. They should not be allowed to change the outcome at this point. And there's a reason for that. You can't overturn 50+ legal elections with two illegal elections. To do so would be ludicrous.

And, honestly, there really is no reason to continue the argument about including them. They will be included in some manner. I say count them all the way since it won't matter, but if it had mattered, I would recomend a 50% outcome like the Republicans did. And their inclusion will not change the outcome so there is no sense arguing for them to be excluded. No matter what manner is used to include them, Obama has the W.

We all know it. As has been said many times, it's all over but the crying. I would appreciate it, however, if the team that bullied and forced a rule change not claim the other side cheated. There is only so deep the bullshit can get before it reaches our mouths.

They have said they will accept no outcome that gives delegates, any delegates, to Obama.

I don't usually do this to the same side of a debate, but I'd like a source to this one. Is that true? In Michigan, I assume.

I don't usually do this to the same side of a debate, but I'd like a source to this one. Is that true? In Michigan, I assume.

You should always do it. You don't want to get hung by someone else's mistake.

You should always do it. You don't want to get hung by someone else's mistake.

Why I added the "usually". I tend to let my companions do their own jobs and I myself do mine, but this thing Clinton's campaign would have done is so utterly wrong that I have to double-check.

Why does the number keep changing? It was 2025. Then 2026. I just heard Bill Clinton say 2029. Are they adding delegates?

Why does the number keep changing? It was 2025. Then 2026. I just heard Bill Clinton say 2029. Are they adding delegates?

The recent elections in Mississippi and ?Louisiana? added delegates.

Basically, anything that happens that puts more Democrats in Congress, governorships, or many other top-level state positions adds to the overall delegate count because they all get to be superdelegates.

Why does the number keep changing? It was 2025. Then 2026. I just heard Bill Clinton say 2029. Are they adding delegates?

I don't know where 2029 comes from, but 2026 is the result of the Dems gaining seats, which increases the number of superdelegates.

Perhaps Bill meant 2209, which is, IIRC, the number if you include Michigan and Florida.

Is Nader officially running?
I do believe that he has thrown his hat into the ring.

Seriously?

Pretty much every presidential candidate has stated that we need to be going after Osama bin Laden. Clinton has said it. McCain has said it. Even Ron Paul said it.

You aren't going to find a single candidate who will say, "You know what? I don't care about terrorism at all."
Clinton didn't give this speech:

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)

That is scary stuff, if he tries to impliment it fully.

Can you be both elitist and idealist? It seems to me that the two conflict.
Seems to fit quite well together for Obama.

And why is trying to appeal to the entire electorate instead of divisively only caring about your own little segment a bad thing?
Smoke and mirrors if you ask me.

Because the vitriol from Clinton supporters has been any less evident?
Yes it has been less prevalent.

People get worked up about politics. You see vitriol. Pretending that this is somehow a phenomenon restricted to those who support Obama is rather silly.
I didn't say it was restricted....I suggest that Obama supporters, especially those here has been way overboard. You haven't noticed?

Snip.

1- Hillary mentioned the words "obliterate" and "Iran" with the latter being the object to the former verb.

2- Just about everything you posted here was your impressions. Not facts.

3- You told a poster to, and I quote, "G_ f_ck y_ _rs_lf". And here you are, once again, claiming that WE are overboard. By the way, could you answer that post I made for you to buy some vowels, or are you, once again, _n_bl_ t_?

Ajntsa

Heik, quit it. I'm getting headaches trying to decipher your posts.

Ajntsa

Good point. o_O

Right?

Heik, quit it. I'm getting headaches trying to decipher your posts.

_'ll st_p wh_n CH r_sp_nds. Pl_s _'m n_t _nsw_r_ng _ll p_sts l_k_ th_s, j_st _ f_w. ;)

Good point. o_O

Right?

I'll give you the first two words... "Aw Jeez,"

I'll give you the first two words... "Aw Jeez,"

I'd like it better as:

_w, j_ _z, n_t th_s sh_t _g_ _n. ;)

I didn't say it was restricted....I suggest that Obama supporters, especially those here has been way overboard. You haven't noticed?

I've noticed you and Shal breaking out the personal attacks when called on hypocrisy and evasion. Last I checked you both back McCain.

Hillary Clinton should definitely stay in the race. I don't like John McCain's views, but I cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama.

Hillary Clinton should definitely stay in the race. I don't like John McCain's views, but I cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama.

This is the kind of thoughtful well researched answer I've heard so many times..

Hillary Clinton should definitely stay in the race. I don't like John McCain's views, but I cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama.


because of his middle name?

let's see how this works out. There's no way he can say (seriously) you didn't provide the info.
He did not provide the correct info that would back Hek's claim, and neither did Hek.
That is a fact.

Hillary Clinton should definitely stay in the race. I don't like John McCain's views, but I cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama.

http://www.hrcapitalist.com/images/2007/07/24/petscom_sock_puppett.jpg

That or you're actually a guy that came here to claim distrust of someone based, seemingly, on his last name, and thought you'd be taken seriously. Either way, not a proud moment for you.

because of his middle name?

*cough*Lookattheguy'sjoindate!*cough*

He did not provide the correct info that would back Hek's claim, and neither did Hek.
That is a fact.

Yes we did, and the info is spread over several pages you chose to ignore. Now will you play that "buy a vowel" game with me or do you acknowledge your loss there?

I've noticed you and Shal breaking out the personal attacks when called on hypocrisy and evasion.
Please be more definitive.

Last I checked you both back McCain.
Find me one post where I state that I support McCain. You ain't going to find it my friend.

Please be more definitive.

Oh, let me, by all means:

Shalrirochia calling us arrogant at all times, you telling Jocabia to go f_ck himself, you TWO claiming that WE are flaming whenever we disagree, etc, etc, etc.

Yes we did, and the info is spread over several pages you chose to ignore.
Do you seriously believe that your link and those of Jocabia really support your claim? They truly don't my friend.

Now will you play that "buy a vowel" game with me or do you acknowledge your loss there?
You want to play games? I just want to debate.

Do you seriously believe that your link and those of Jocabia really support your claim? They truly don't my friend.

I believe they and the other several do.

You want to play games? I just want to debate.

You could prove that assertion by stopping playing games and debating.

Hillary Clinton should definitely stay in the race. I don't like John McCain's views, but I cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama.

Yeah, remember that time Obama invented a story about being under heavy sniper fire? And later said that he "said things that he knew not to be the case" but denied that it was a lie?
And that time when his campaign circulated rumors that his opponent was *gasps* a m0zl3m. Granted, he apologized for it, but remember when he later circulated a picture of his opponent in the local dress of a country he was visiting with the intent of invoking "OMG M0Zl3M" again?
And similarly, remember when he said his opponent was not a muslim... "as far as he knew?"
Remember when he claimed his opponent's website took down a speech criticizing the Iraq war, when Waybackmachine can demonstrate that his opponent actually had it up the entire time?
Remember when he circulated rumors that his opponent's campaign had told the Canadian government that they actually supported NAFTA?


Yeah. Those were all things that Obama did, right?

Oh, wait.

Please be more definitive.
_k_y j_st f_ll _n th_ bl_nks.


Find me one post where I state that I support McCain. You ain't going to find it my friend.
You support Hillary, in an election you can't take part in that she cannot win. The only reason you would do that is if you support McCain. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Do you seriously believe that your link and those of Jocabia really support your claim? They truly don't my friend.

See, here is how debate works. You don't just say, "nuh-uh." You say it doesn't the claim made. WHY doesn't support the claim made?

Some people seem to think they can just accuse posts and they're suddenly debunked. You actually have to show why your claims apply. You haven't. Incidentally, the polls you linked from two posts are not the only posts that have addressed your claims, nor ours.

_'ll st_p wh_n CH r_sp_nds. Pl_s _'m n_t _nsw_r_ng _ll p_sts l_k_ th_s, j_st _ f_w. ;)

I'd like it better as:

_w, j_ _z, n_t th_s sh_t _g_ _n. ;)

I hate you. :mad:

There's a reason I don't like watching Wheel of Fortune. Always makes me feel like an idiot. :p

I hate you. :mad:

There's a reason I don't like watching Wheel of Fortune. Always makes me feel like an idiot. :p

_ww, r_l_x, y_ _'r_ n_t _n _d_ _t! :p

I don't usually do this to the same side of a debate, but I'd like a source to this one. Is that true? In Michigan, I assume.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-camp-uncommitted-mich.-voters-should-not-go-to-obama-2008-05-22.html

It's true. The official position of her campaign is that the "uncommitted" delegates should go to Denver uncommitted.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-camp-uncommitted-mich.-voters-should-not-go-to-obama-2008-05-22.html

It's true. The official position of her campaign is that the "uncommitted" delegates should go to Denver uncommitted.

Can I call her a hag now? It's an improvement over the ones I thought. Or, better yet, what about avoiding gender-specific ones? She deserves it.

Hillary Clinton should definitely stay in the race. I don't like John McCain's views, but I cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama.

So you've never looked at his voting record, prefer to slander him because of his middle name?

Such logic has astounded me. I shall now cross over to Hillary Clinton thanks to your extremely persuasive argument. We must stand against teh ebil m0sl3ms!!!oneone!!!212!

insert [/sarcasm] tags as needed.

Can I call her a hag now? It's an improvement over the ones I thought. Or, better yet, what about avoiding gender-specific ones? She deserves it.

I don't see how that helps anything.

It is amazing, though, how willing her campaign is to keep moving the goalposts. For months, they were arguing that Obama would get the uncommitted. But now that they are so far behind, suddenly, no one supports Obama in Michigan.

So you've never looked at his voting record, prefer to slander him because of his middle name?

Such logic has astounded me. I shall now cross over to Hillary Clinton thanks to your extremely persuasive argument. We must stand against teh ebil m0sl3ms!!!oneone!!!212!

insert [/sarcasm] tags as needed.

Just to point out, either the guy is a puppet, in which case the post is not worth responding to, or he actually believes this, in which case the post is not worth responding to.

_ww, r_l_x, y_ _'r_ n_t _n _d_ _t! :p

*squints*

*walks away grumbling*

I don't see how that helps anything.

Neither do I, but after seeing how self-serving this "person" known as Clinton is, it would make me feel so much better.

Neither do I, but after seeing how self-serving this "person" known as Clinton is, it would make me feel so much better.

Simply doing it out loud would probably work better (in multiple ways,) for you.

Simply doing it out loud would probably work better (in multiple ways,) for you.

Meh. :p

The thing that I don't get is I recall Shal commenting on how HRC's & Obama's platforms are very similar, and yet would rather vote for McCain than Obama.

The thing that I don't get is I recall Shal commenting on how HRC's & Obama's platforms are very similar, and yet would rather vote for McCain than Obama.

His rationale is that we were "arrogant", "mean" and so on (because he seems to think he has been a saint).

You support Hillary, in an election you can't take part in that she cannot win. The only reason you would do that is if you support McCain. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Sorry by that is not a logical assumption. You stated that I "backed McCain". That is patently false.

Sorry by that is not a logical assumption. You stated that I "backed McCain". That is patently false.

Sure it is. Clinton has no chance. 0% probability of winning, unless she hires someone to kill Obama. Your continued support for her can only be out of a level of denial that is probably terminal, or out of support for McCain. Since you've not yet denied yourself to non-existence the answer is fairly obvious.

Sure it is. Clinton has no chance. 0% probability of winning, unless she hires someone to kill Obama. Your continued support for her can only be out of a level of denial that is probably terminal, or out of support for McCain. Since you've not yet denied yourself to non-existence the answer is fairly obvious.
Here....try this on for size:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13721083&postcount=1035

That should explain who I support and why.

He did not provide the correct info that would back Hek's claim, and neither did Hek.
That is a fact.
Huh? No it isn't. You said you wanted to see polls showing Obama doing better than Clinton, and that's what you were given.

You know it's interesting how many Hillary supporters don't actually support Hillary but rather drag down Obama.

From what I can gather the only positives anyone ever lists about Hillary Clinton is she's a woman and she can win the general.

What is it exactly that makes Hillary Clinton a positive candidate?

I can tell you what I support about Obama. Not in comparison to anyone else. Just things I like about him.

I like that he will refocus us back on Bin Laden. We are fight two wars badly right now. I'd prefer that we return our focus on those that attacked our country. Currently, we've only strengthened that group by giving them recruiting ammo and allowing them time to regroup after the initial assault. I think that was a mistake and I'm happy to support an effort to go after those that attack our country and ONLY those that attack our country.

I like that he will end the Iraq occupation and stand that government up on its two feet.

I like that in regards to these two things that he admits that he needs the help of those who are there. He only says he will change the mission but not disable our commanders by not giving them the leeway to work with the situation as it is. I deeply respect this as a former military man who has seen what leadership works and what doesn't. Firing everyone who disagrees with you, does not work. Hamstringing those that disagree with you in a way that doesn't allow them to get the job done does not work. Don't believe me. I present Iraq as my evidence.

I like that he is working to support our vets. The current condition of veteran's benefits is shameful. I don't know if many remember but around the time I arrived on this site I was working on a project for the VA office. I've seen those benefits first-hand from both sides. The people who are working for that department should be applauded. They do so much with so little. However, it's clear we have so much more to do.

I like that he is involving the people in the fundraising and campaign process. I've always been a fan of grassroots movements. I think this qualifies.

I like that he is doing what Bush only claimed. His attempts to appeal across the aisle, to reach out to traditionally red constituencies is a benefit, not a curse. The military is traditionally red. And we've been aching for something better for a long time.

I like that he abandoned the 50%+1 strategy, though I wish he would stay committed to this principle. He has balked on it on occasion, but certainly he has upset the system with just such a strategy. It's not his strategy, in fact. It's the blossoming strategy of a new DNC. I'm glad they're not sticking to the past strategies that lost them the last election that should have been a giveaway.

I like that he speaks to us like he expects us to understand. I'm so tired of American politicians treating us like idiots and children.

I like that he has shown a committment to better diplomacy. Our resolute disdain for other foreign powers has seriously hurt us in the past. It's time to take our proper place in world politics.

There's more, but this is too long as it is.

Here....try this on for size:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13721083&postcount=1035

That should explain who I support and why.

Now do you have a rational reason? Or more victim playing? Maybe you are that deep in denial.

Clinton didn't give this speech:

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)

That is scary stuff, if he tries to impliment it fully.

Why? It's fairly basic:

1) Get out of Iraq
2) Refocus on the NATO effort in Afghanistan, where we actually went in after Al Qaeda
3) Form a multinational police force to deal with terrorist threats
4) Actually, you know, use diplomacy
5) Increase foreign aid so that hotbeds of terrorism are less likely to rise in the first place.
6) No more torture, kangaroo courts, etc.

It all sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Seems to fit quite well together for Obama.

How so? How is he, for instance, elitist?

Yes it has been less prevalent.

Hardly. My guess is that you just notice it less because they're on "your side", as it were.

Although I will note one difference. The vitriol of Clinton supporters seems to be pointed, not just at Obama, but at anyone who dares to support him. The vitriol of Obama supporters seems to be pointed squarely at Clinton herself.

I didn't say it was restricted....I suggest that Obama supporters, especially those here has been way overboard. You haven't noticed?

I haven't seen any more than I've seen in any other election - on behalf of any candidate, really. I definitely haven't seen any more vitriol from Obama supporters than I have from Clinton supporters or, say, Paul supporters.

I just read this. Thought y'all might find it interesting. It captures a lot of what we've discussed here.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/323677

Here....try this on for size:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13721083&postcount=1035

That should explain who I support and why.

Actually, as usual, it shows who you won't support. Clearly you don't support Clinton either, since she fails every marker you set there.

It would be nice if people promoted candidates instead of just attacking others for a change. But that's just me.

Huh? No it isn't. You said you wanted to see polls showing Obama doing better than Clinton, and that's what you were given.
Sorry, but that is incorrect.

Let's recap once again (Part 1 of Heikoku's post):

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.
To which I replied:

Where are these "very big number of polls"?
To which he replied:

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

And that's about one more bit of evidence than you've been providing.
Clearly, those polls do not support his claim period!!

Part 2 of Heikoku's post:
Nor do you seem to appreciate that people would ACTUALLY vote for McCain to prevent Hillary from getting to the White House,
To which I replied:

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

Part 3 of Heikoku's post:
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.
To which I replied
Where are these "facts"?
This part of his post has not been answered. He has not supplied his "facts" yet. I dare say that he cannot provide any facts to back up this claim.

Then there was the "goldfish response" gem by Jocabia.....several posters enjoying the hilarity of that comment, and then Jocabia posted a couple of links, mixed in with some further personal attacks but they also failed to support Heikoku's original claim:

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.

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.

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.
All of that to arrive at a failed attempt to support one part of Heikoku's claim.

I believe that I have had to endure a lot to get to this point. The fact that you are agreeing with their "facts" suggests to me that you were not aware of the original claim?

Snip.

You seem to have forgotten the many, many links other people posted that, y'know, disproved your claims.

Let's put this in context since you keep dishonestly representing my 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.

At the open of the post he keeps quoting, he asked me if I would be attempting to support his claim. I didn't. I said explicitly that my posts were addressing CH's response. Not the original claim. I also stated that I was not attempting to support the original claim as I viewed it as adequatedly supported from the moment it was made (since it had been made and supported before). He tends to try to remove that context. So let's see what claim CH made that my links are HONESTLY in reply to.


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.

And, look, there is the claim. Now, when I post a set of polls that overall show Obama as more popular than Hillary, a direct context, which is what popularity refers to.


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

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

As you can see, Obama is actually MORE popular than Hillary.


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.

But I didn't stop there, because I'm always happy to help, I also pointed out the problem with his selective evidence. He chose one poll of many that shows that overall, Obama is polling better against McCain.

So he takes my post out of context, ignores that it was directly addressing HIS claims and that the polls were exactly on point and then tries to make it seem like something completely different took place.

Seriously, CH, give it up. Not even you believe this nonsense anymore.

You seem to have forgotten the many, many links other people posted that, y'know, disproved your claims.
No...it was your claim that we were addressing and no they haven't produced a "very big number of polls putting Obama at a greater advantage against McCain than Hillary's ever had".

Nice try. And are you going to answer the 3rd part of that post, whereby you claimed:

Originally Posted by Heikoku 2
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.

No...it was your claim that we were addressing and no they haven't produced a "very big number of polls putting Obama at a greater advantage against McCain than Hillary's ever had".

Nice try. And are you going to answer the 3rd part of that post, whereby you claimed:

Originally Posted by Heikoku 2

We produced the bulk of current polls. Something that has been offered throughout this thread. That you refuse to look at ALL the evidence isn't an argument. In fact, it's a reason to discard an argument.

Regardless, please state exactly what evidence you think would satisfy the claim. "Nuh-uh" is not an argument.

No...it was your claim that we were addressing and no they haven't produced a "very big number of polls putting Obama at a greater advantage against McCain than Hillary's ever had".

Nice try. And are you going to answer the 3rd part of that post, whereby you claimed:

Originally Posted by Heikoku 2

Again: Look at the entire thread.

And the point that people won't vote for Clinton if the party bosses hand her the nomination over delegates, people and so on is so widely known that just about EVERYONE MAKES IT.

From Jocabia's links:

Rasmussen Tracking 05/23 - 05/26 1600 LV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 48 45 Clinton +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 43 43 Tie
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 44 39 Clinton +5.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 - 05/15 1014 LV 49 47 Clinton +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 43 51 McCain +8.0


Rasmussen Tracking 05/23 - 05/26 1600 LV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 48 40 Obama +8.0
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 48 37 Obama +11.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 - 05/15 1014 LV 48 46 Obama +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 49 47 Obama +2.0

These don't appear to demonstrate a "very big number of polls putting Obama at a greater advantage against McCain than Hillary's ever had", especially if you remove the obvious "outlier".?

As a matter of fact, it appears that recent polling favours Clinton.

Again: Look at the entire thread.

And the point that people won't vote for Clinton if the party bosses hand her the nomination over delegates, people and so on is so widely known that just about EVERYONE MAKES IT.

What he's attempting to make this about is your hyperbole. It's a little game he's playing. What he doesn't know is that by rather than taking the intended meaning of what you said and clinging to your use of the word "ever", he is actually putting the burden on himself. A burden he hasn't and cannot meet. That's why despite repeated requests for the exact proof that would support your claim, he won't answer. He doesn't have an answer. He'd have to admit that his claims aren't honest claims. They can't be met.

I might as well ask you to prove that you've never shot an elephant. In doing so, I'd be putting the burden on the wrong person. It's called shifting the burden of proof. It's a fallacy. (I wonder if I'm flaming him by pointing out this fallacy as well.)

From Jocabia's links:

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 48 45 Clinton +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 43 43 Tie
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 44 39 Clinton +5.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 - 05/15 1014 LV 49 47 Clinton +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 43 51 McCain +8.0


Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 48 40 Obama +8.0
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 48 37 Obama +11.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 - 05/15 1014 LV 48 46 Obama +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 49 47 Obama +2.0

These don't appear to demonstrate a "very big number of polls putting Obama at a greater advantage against McCain than Hillary's ever had", especially if you remove the obvious "outlier".?

As a matter of fact, it appears that recent polling favours Clinton.

Man, how times change? Before you clung to the outliers even after we explained why they would be ignored. Incidentally, you wouldn't remove outliers for his claim. The reason being that he didn't make a statistical claim. He made a claim about the polls themselves. Also, you should probably look up how to calculate outliers, because your claim that the one you bolded is the "obvious" outlier is wrong.

Notice how now he has to remove some of the evidence in order to make his claim. To further obfuscate the issue, he includes a poll that didn't exist at the time the claim was made. Of course, this would be intellectually dishonest since your claim couldn't possibly account for polls that would appear in the future, but that hasn't prevented him from claiming otherwise. The poll was completed yesterday and put up today. I've corrected his post for him to make it represent the actual evidence for your claim. The evidence that clearly supports your claim.

Man, how times change? Before you clung to the outliers even after we explained why they would be ignored. Incidentally, you wouldn't remove outliers for his claim. The reason being that he didn't make a statistical claim. He made a claim about the polls themselves. Also, you should probably look up how to calculate outliers, because your claim that the one you bolded is the "obvious" outlier is wrong.

Notice how now he has to remove some of the evidence in order to make his claim. To further obfuscate the issue, he includes a poll that didn't exist at the time the claim was made. Of course, this would be intellectually dishonest since your claim couldn't possibly account for polls that would appear in the future, but that hasn't prevented him from claiming otherwise. The poll was completed yesterday and put up today. I've corrected his post for him to make it represent the actual evidence for your claim. The evidence that clearly supports your claim.
More attack the poster. More claims of "intellectual dishonesty". And no the evidence does not support Heikoku's claim.

I am done with this. You don't want debate. You were wrong. Heikoku was wrong. You think otherwise....I am happy for you.

Done....finito!!

More attack the poster. More claims of "intellectual dishonesty". And no the evidence does not support Heikoku's claim.

I am done with this. You don't want debate. You were wrong. Heikoku was wrong. You think otherwise....I am happy for you.

Done....finito!!

Bravely, bold Sir Robin
Rode forth from Camelot...

Um, my grandfather, um, my uncle (wait, my mom didn't have any brothers), um, my great-uncle liberated Auschwitz (wait he wasn't in the Soviet Army), um, no it was Treblinka,

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

um, no it was, um, yeah, "liberate"

http://www.youtube.com/v/SV1sxq8mqvA&hl=en

um,

*aide whispers in his ear: "The only remotely plausible camp would have been the Ohrduf camp, part of Buchenwald" *

Oh yeah, Ohrduf.

----------

Listen, if he can't reference anything true on Memorial Day in reference to family members who served in actual places that are actually plausible, and can't keep the uncle/great uncle/grandfather straight, or even the name of the camp he "liberated", then he should stick to simple platitudes about service.

He looks like a fucking idiot.

I believe they and the other several do.



You could prove that assertion by stopping playing games and debating.

Kay, I'm going to have to say this since no one else is.

Hiekoku, for fuck's sake, stop playing the damned game and constantly baiting him. He's screwing around avoiding debate for the most part, but you're just feeding it constantly. STOP IT. NOW. I'm getting so sick of it because I really want to see him actually debate and YOU'RE the one keeping him from doing so.

So stop it.

So, now, looking at when his claim was made and what polls were available at the time.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
From Jocabia's links:

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 48 45 Clinton +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 43 43 Tie
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 44 39 Clinton +5.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 - 05/15 1014 LV 49 47 Clinton +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 43 51 McCain +8.0
Average Clinton +0.7

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 48 40 Obama +8.0
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 48 37 Obama +11.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 - 05/15 1014 LV 48 46 Obama +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 49 47 Obama +2.0
Average Obama +3.7


You say you want to get rid of the stuff that's old. Okay, I can agree to that. Especially since one of them actually IS an outlier.

Goodbye to anything more than a week old.

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 48 45 Clinton +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 43 43 Tie
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 44 39 Clinton +5.0
Average Clinton +3

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 48 40 Obama +8.0
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 48 37 Obama +11.0
Average Obama +4

Yep, removing the older polls doesn't help you. It makes it closer, but GUESS WHO'S leadin'?

Let's see if removing the outliers helps you. Please, looking at these four polls, which poll is an outlier? Hint: Gallup and IBD are the same distance from the average. First you're going to have to tell us the standard deviation. You do have that calculated, don't you? Or perhaps now is a good time to admit you don't actually know which polls are outliers?

Um, my grandfather, um, my uncle (wait, my mom didn't have any brothers), um, my great-uncle liberated Auschwitz (wait he wasn't in the Soviet Army), um, no it was Treblinka,

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

um, no it was, um, yeah, "liberate"

http://www.youtube.com/v/SV1sxq8mqvA&hl=en

um,

*aide whispers in his ear: "The only remotely plausible camp would have been the Ohrduf camp, part of Buchenwald" *

Oh yeah, Ohrduf.

----------

Listen, if he can't reference anything true on Memorial Day in reference to family members who served in actual places that are actually plausible, and can't keep the uncle/great uncle/grandfather straight, or even the name of the camp he "liberated", then he should stick to simple platitudes about service.

He looks like a fucking idiot.


What is this you are saying now DK?

Obama claimed his grandfather liberated Auschwitz?

are you sure he didnt say "He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka."

What is this you are saying now DK?

Obama claimed his grandfather liberated Auschwitz?

are you sure he didnt say "He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka."

Nah, he's saying that while that was written in a speech in 2002, in the clip from yesterday (?) Obama says that an uncle of his went into Auschwitz when it was liberated.

What all the other stuff in his post is about, I wouldn't know.

More attack the poster. More claims of "intellectual dishonesty". And no the evidence does not support Heikoku's claim.

I am done with this. You don't want debate. You were wrong. Heikoku was wrong. You think otherwise....I am happy for you.

Done....finito!!

How would you describe including polls from after he made the claim? How would you describe complaining that outliers are equally valid in one debate and then calling a pol an outlier to remove it in another?

Let me explain the terms that often come up in debate.

Intellectual dishonesty - doesn't call you a liar. It says that a claim is not intellectually consistent. No more. No less. The term itself is meant to describe the phenomena of intellectual inconsistency.

Strawman - doesn't suggest you portray any qualities of straw. It simply says you are arguing against a claim no one made. No more. No less. The term itself is meant to describe the phenomena of building an argument and then burning it down (i.e. like burning a man made of straw).

Goldfishing - doesn't say you have the mythical memory of a goldfish. It simply says you are ignoring previous evidence or arguments already presented and asking for them again. No more. No less. The term itself is meant to describe the phenomena of an argument that appears to reflect the mythical goldfish memory.

None of these terms are personal attacks. They and many like them are commonly used in debate to rather quickly describe a tactic being used. That you've chosen to twist them into something personal really isn't relevant.

I don't condone some of the more vicious attacks that have been made by all sides of this argument. As of yet, you've not been able to show me making even one. If "intellectual dishonesty" is too much for you, then you probably shouldn't have been on NSG in the first place. I've seen mods use that term.

Nah, he's saying that while that was written in a speech in 2002, in the clip from yesterday (?) Obama says that an uncle of his went into Auschwitz when it was liberated.

What all the other stuff in his post is about, I wouldn't know.


I had to look around to see what he was talking about and finally found that it was a great uncle rather than an uncle (ohhhhhhh snap! that's like calling your sister your second cousin twice removed and then banging her) and he got the camp name wrong. My god! He must be a huge liar!

I had to look around to see what he was talking about and finally found that it was a great uncle rather than an uncle (ohhhhhhh snap! that's like calling your sister your second cousin twice removed and then banging her) and he got the camp name wrong. My god! He must be a huge liar!

Wait, now you lost me. There was no great uncle and no wrong camp name in the video he linked.

Wait, now you lost me. There was no great uncle and no wrong camp name in the video he linked.

I didn't get to watch the video but I read that he said his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz when really it was his great uncle who helped liberate Ohrdruf according to his campaign.

Wait, now you lost me. There was no great uncle and no wrong camp name in the video he linked.

In the video he calls his great uncle, his uncle. Incidentally, I call my great uncle, "Uncle Mario". It's a pretty common practice.

However, what DK is trying to do is to conflate two different stories to make them seem like they are dishonest. In fact, he simply named the wrong camp. I'm not sure why anyone should care. I guess when you desperately need to find something to charge against the candidate that is so obviously going to win, you gotta cling to anything you can find.

In the video he calls his great uncle, his uncle. Incidentally, I call my great uncle, "Uncle Mario". It's a pretty common practice.

However, what DK is trying to do is to conflate two different stories to make them seem like they are dishonest. In fact, he simply named the wrong camp. I'm not sure why anyone should care. I guess when you desperately need to find something to charge against the candidate that is so obviously going to win, you gotta cling to anything you can find.

Welcome to the coming general election. Who can remember the importance of the exact day someone is Cambodia...

Incidentally, here's the story (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-flubs-con.html)

After several conservative bloggers and Fox News Channel pointed out that the Auchwitz concentration camp was liberated by Soviet soldiers, not Americans, Obama's campaign clarified the statement.

"Senator Obama's family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II –- especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald," spokesman Bill Burton said. "Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically."

Buchenwald was liberated by American soldiers in April 1945.

Said Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant: "At times it appears that Barack Obama inaccurately recalls his own history and American history, so it's important that we point to the facts. In this case, we're happy to see that he took the time to set the record straight."

Welcome to the coming general election. Who can remember the importance of the exact day someone is Cambodia...

Incidentally, here's the story (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-flubs-con.html)

The Republicans have a candidate who can't a MAJOR detail of the war that we're involved in TODAY straight are attacking a candidate who can't keep a minor detail of the war we were involved in 60+ years ago, BEFORE he was born.

The Republicans have a candidate who can't a MAJOR detail of the war that we're involved in TODAY straight are attacking a candidate who can't keep a minor detail of the war we were involved in 60+ years ago, BEFORE he was born.

You know that, and I know that, but is that going to stop the next few months of posts like DK's? Last time they had a guy who ducked the war and attacked the the service of the opponent who served. Up is down, etc...

You know that, and I know that, but is that going to stop the next few months of posts like DK's? Last time they had a guy who ducked the war and attacked the the service of the opponent who served. Up is down, etc...

Yeah, that was gold. "Yeah, you go three purple hearts, but you weren't REALLY hurt. I mean, geez, the guy Cheney shot in the fact didn't get a purple heart. If that guy didn't get one, then you must not have really deserved one."

Seriously, it was like watching the Simpson trial. Actually, it was like watching a parody of the Simpson trial.

What does intellectually dishonest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty)really imply?

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on conversations similar to accusations of ignorance.[citation needed]

The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.
I think the middle term is fairly describes the destructiveness of spouting such barbs.

What does intellectually dishonest really imply?


I think the middle term is fairly describes the destructiveness of spouting such barbs.

There, you got your complaint out. Feel better? Now how about we pretend this a debate forum and actually do that? Your comment was intellectually dishonest. It was not intellectually consistent and demonstrated exactly how it was not. It's NOT ONLY within site rules to point out that inconsistency, but it's an expect and accepted part of debate. Deal with it.

If you don't like the term pretend I said your reply was filled with sunflowers and peonies. It'll still mean that it was intellectually inconsistent. If you believe I'm wrong, show why. If you're simply going to complain that debate upsets you, I don't care. I'm not here to fluff your pillow. I'm hear to attack or support your positions or present positions of my own. You should try it some time.

Speaking of which, did you notice you didn't cite your source? There I go again. What is with me and pointing out the flaws in posts? It's almost like this is a debate forum or something.

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
[indent]Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. [/quote]

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.
Actually, it would appear that your knowledge of goldfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish#Memory)is a tad inaccurate:

Research by the School of Psychology at the University of Plymouth in 2003 demonstrated that goldfish have a memory-span of at least three months and can distinguish between different shapes, colors and sounds.
It also appears that goldfish have some admirable qualities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish#Behaviour):

Scientific studies done on the matter have shown that goldfish have strong associative learning abilities, as well as social learning skills. In addition, their strong visual acuity allows them to distinguish between different humans.....

As fish they can be described as “friendly” towards each other, very rarely will a goldfish harm another goldfish....
Despite these rather strong abilities, it is rather inappropriate to refer to another poster as a "goldfish"....it is ungoldfish like. :)

"Senator Obama's family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II –- especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald," spokesman Bill Burton said. "Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically."
Ah, thanks.

That's incredibly much lamer than I thought it would be. He said Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald? How heinous.

(I'm not even considering the saying of "uncle" instead of "great uncle" a mistake because I have never ever referred to my great uncles and great aunts as such but always just as uncles and aunts.)

Despite these rather strong abilities, it is rather inappropriate to refer to another poster as a "goldfish"....it is ungoldfish like. :)

Weren't you done with this thread?

Ah, thanks.

That's incredibly much lamer than I thought it would be. He said Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald? How heinous.

(I'm not even considering the saying of "uncle" instead of "great uncle" a mistake because I have never ever referred to my great uncles and great aunts as such but always just as uncles and aunts.)

I think McCain's campaign should be crying uncle...

Weren't you done with this thread?
Done with a certain poster yes. Why the concern?

*snip*
Goldfishing - doesn't say you have the mythical memory of a goldfish.
Now that all your attempts to derail reasoned debate have flunked the reason test. Let's move on.

So, now, looking at when his claim was made and what polls were available at the time.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
From Jocabia's links:

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 48 45 Clinton +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 43 43 Tie
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 44 39 Clinton +5.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 - 05/15 1014 LV 49 47 Clinton +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 43 51 McCain +8.0
Average Clinton +0.7

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 48 40 Obama +8.0
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 48 37 Obama +11.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 - 05/15 1014 LV 48 46 Obama +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 49 47 Obama +2.0
Average Obama +3.7


You say you want to get rid of the stuff that's old. Okay, I can agree to that. Especially since one of them actually IS an outlier.

Goodbye to anything more than a week old.

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 48 45 Clinton +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 43 43 Tie
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 44 39 Clinton +5.0
Average Clinton +3

Gallup Tracking 05/21 - 05/25 4417 RV 44 47 McCain +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 48 40 Obama +8.0
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 48 37 Obama +11.0
Average Obama +4

Yep, removing the older polls doesn't help you. It makes it closer, but GUESS WHO'S leadin'?

Let's see if removing the outliers helps you. Please, looking at these four polls, which poll is an outlier? Hint: Gallup and IBD are the same distance from the average. First you're going to have to tell us the standard deviation. You do have that calculated, don't you? Or perhaps now is a good time to admit you don't actually know which polls are outliers?

Now about that debate. I take you admit you don't know what an outlier actual is or how one is found to be an outlier?

Let's put this in context since you keep dishonestly representing my 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.

At the open of the post he keeps quoting, he asked me if I would be attempting to support his claim. I didn't. I said explicitly that my posts were addressing CH's response. Not the original claim. I also stated that I was not attempting to support the original claim as I viewed it as adequatedly supported from the moment it was made (since it had been made and supported before). He tends to try to remove that context. So let's see what claim CH made that my links are HONESTLY in reply to.


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.

And, look, there is the claim. Now, when I post a set of polls that overall show Obama as more popular than Hillary, a direct context, which is what popularity refers to.


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

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

As you can see, Obama is actually MORE popular than Hillary.


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.

But I didn't stop there, because I'm always happy to help, I also pointed out the problem with his selective evidence. He chose one poll of many that shows that overall, Obama is polling better against McCain.

So he takes my post out of context, ignores that it was directly addressing HIS claims and that the polls were exactly on point and then tries to make it seem like something completely different took place.

Seriously, CH, give it up. Not even you believe this nonsense anymore.

I do believe that he has thrown his hat into the ring.


Clinton didn't give this speech:

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)

That is scary stuff, if he tries to impliment it fully.


Seems to fit quite well together for Obama.


Smoke and mirrors if you ask me.


Yes it has been less prevalent.


I didn't say it was restricted....I suggest that Obama supporters, especially those here has been way overboard. You haven't noticed?

So Hillary didn't mean she'd obliterate Iran, but Obama did say he'd "invade" Pakistan (that is what you've claimed in the past after all. Don't go playing "Dori" on me either). You can't have it both ways. If you give her the benefit of the doubt you must then do so with him.

Hillary Clinton should definitely stay in the race. I don't like John McCain's views, but I cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama.

where are the gun smilies?

He did not provide the correct info that would back Hek's claim, and neither did Hek.
That is a fact.

Right, let's all just go to electoralvote.com and call it a day. Is this an indication that you'd actually like to engage in mental gymnastics again? I don't want to hurt your feelings by making an opposing argument, if that's too traumatic for you.

Huh? No it isn't. You said you wanted to see polls showing Obama doing better than Clinton, and that's what you were given.

Shhhh, it's the Clinton "shift the argument" strategy.

Right, let's all just go to electoralvote.com and call it a day. Is this an indication that you'd actually like to engage in mental gymnastics again? I don't want to hurt your feelings by making an opposing argument, if that's too traumatic for you.

I like you. Would you like to be my sidekick? :D

I like you. Would you like to be my sidekick? :D

The offer is flattering, but I'm always the main star in the show. Besides, I'm not always a good teammate. I tend to go out guns blazing whether you are ready or not. Good thing for me is I have wonderful aim. I can attest to one thing, nary a man has died while kept in my guard. I am always my brothers' keeper.

Edit: Good night all

Saturday is shapin' up to be ugly (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/27/obama-supporters-planning-dnc-counter-protest/)

Supporters of Barack Obama’s presidential bid are planning to demonstrate outside the Saturday meeting in Washington where Democratic officials are slated to debate the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations at the party’s summer convention.

The move comes days after backers of Hillary Clinton’s White House run announced plans to converge on the Washington, D.C. hotel where members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee are meeting.

“Hillary Clinton's supporters are going to be bussing in protestors for the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, so it's critical that we show up for the counter-protest,” wrote on organizer in a post on the Daily Kos Web site Tuesday morning.

No good will come of this.

Saturday is shapin' up to be ugly (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/27/obama-supporters-planning-dnc-counter-protest/)



No good will come of this.

Politics. Obama claims to be the voice of a new political reality, but some of the tactics employed by his followers are really similar to things we saw in 2000 and 2004.

Saturday is shapin' up to be ugly (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/27/obama-supporters-planning-dnc-counter-protest/)



No good will come of this.

Why is it that Clinton is only suggesting her supporters arrive to get them counted HER way? And why are Barack supporters a "counter" demonstration? Shouldn't they both be defending the voters?

Why? It's fairly basic:

1) Get out of Iraq
2) Refocus on the NATO effort in Afghanistan, where we actually went in after Al Qaeda
3) Form a multinational police force to deal with terrorist threats
4) Actually, you know, use diplomacy
5) Increase foreign aid so that hotbeds of terrorism are less likely to rise in the first place.
6) No more torture, kangaroo courts, etc.

It all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I have watched the video twice and read this speech about four or five times. I see the fine print. Perhaps it is just me but it sticks out like a sore thumb.

1. How can Obaqma justify getting out of Iraq?

Iraq is a training ground for terror, torn apart by civil war.

2. Refocus on Afghanistan:

Afghanistan is more violent than it has been since 2001.
Send the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Noble goal at first site. Hidden goal?

Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan. Israel is besieged by emboldened enemies, talking openly of its destruction. Iran is now presenting the broadest strategic challenge to the United States in the Middle East in a generation.
Pakistan and Iran next targets? More troops on the Iranian and Pakistani borders.

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Ahhh...the "battlefield in Pakistan".

Forced democracy (where have we seen that before?):

And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.


How so? How is he, for instance, elitist?
That he believes that he will be one of the great Presidents like Reagan, because he is the transformative one. Bill Clinton didn't mesure up in Obama's view. Smooth talker with a great speech writer. Scary.

Hardly. My guess is that you just notice it less because they're on "your side", as it were.
My perception is that it is quite rampant and very vindictive.

Although I will note one difference. The vitriol of Clinton supporters seems to be pointed, not just at Obama, but at anyone who dares to support him. The vitriol of Obama supporters seems to be pointed squarely at Clinton herself.
Perhaps a re-read of these nominating threads might suggest otherwise?

I haven't seen any more than I've seen in any other election - on behalf of any candidate, really. I definitely haven't seen any more vitriol from Obama supporters than I have from Clinton supporters or, say, Paul supporters.
I have. It is real, present and poisinous.

Why is it that Clinton is only suggesting her supporters arrive to get them counted HER way? And why are Barack supporters a "counter" demonstration? Shouldn't they both be defending the voters?

The Obama people want them counted, but they only want them counted in a way that doesn't threaten his nomination hopes. That's a fundamental disconnect from what we in the Clinton arm of the party want, because we feel that a full counting of the votes strengthens her hand.

The Obama people want them counted, but they only want them counted in a way that doesn't threaten his nomination hopes. That's a fundamental disconnect from what we in the Clinton arm of the party want, because we feel that a full counting of the votes strengthens her hand.

There isn't any reasonable way to count them that threatens his candidacy. He is several hundred votes ahead.

The "Clinton arm" of the party wants to pretend that no one in Michigan supported Obama. They started out agreeing to a compromise. NOW they want no delegates from Michigan to go to Obama. Interestingly enough, even this absurd method of counting will not get her the nomination.

Saturday is shapin' up to be ugly (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/27/obama-supporters-planning-dnc-counter-protest/)

No good will come of this.
I agree. This has been a thorn in the side of the Democratic party since the vote. I have stated all along that something has to be done about this. Unfortunately, I do believe that whatever they decide it will end up costing the Dems in November.

* envisages less than pleasant hostilities amongst opposing supporters.

* envisages many Republican cameramen/women taking copious amounts of film footage.

a full counting of the votes strengthens her hand.

Really? Including the "Uncommitted" votes because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, a state Clinton agreed to forsake back when it suited HER?

Politics. Obama claims to be the voice of a new political reality, but some of the tactics employed by his followers are really similar to things we saw in 2000 and 2004.

Such as...

we feel that a full counting of the votes strengthens her hand.

well, at least she's stopped trying to play go fish while the rest of us were playing poker. but her pair of threes ain't beating obama's full house.

Such as...

tv ads...he has them!

tv ads...he has them!

And also none of them voted for a Clinton in the general. That's exactly the same as well.

Good news, possibly:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/gop_senate_massacre_of_08

Good news, possibly:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/gop_senate_massacre_of_08

This we can agree on. This is not a good year to be a republican.

Good news, possibly:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/gop_senate_massacre_of_08

I've been linking to stories like this for a while, and it's one of the things that Obama's infrastructure plays really well in. McCain is not only going to have to run a presidential campaign, but he's going to have to be using his resources playing defense for congressional seats. So even in states where Obama might compete but not win, McCain is going to have to be defending his backyard. The greatest favor a Democratic candidate can do for him is play the +1 game on the old map-this frees him up to only contest 'decider' states and shore up the base states almost as his leisure. We've already seen the 'states that matter' game claim two formerly 'inevitable' candidates and if the Democrats play that game in the fall in the worst case it will cost another inevitable victory and at best allow the Republican party a chance to stop the bleeding.

Good news, possibly:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/gop_senate_massacre_of_08

I only disagree this time in that I think it's "probably". ;)

Filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the senate, majority Democrat in congress, under a Democrat president. The dark ages would finally be over.

I've been linking to stories like this for a while, and it's one of the things that Obama's infrastructure plays really well in. McCain is not only going to have to run a presidential campaign, but he's going to have to be using his resources playing defense for congressional seats. So even in states where Obama might compete but not win, McCain is going to have to be defending his backyard. The greatest favor a Democratic candidate can do for him is play the +1 game on the old map-this frees him up to only contest 'decider' states and shore up the base states almost as his leisure. We've already seen the 'states that matter' game claim two formerly 'inevitable' candidates and if the Democrats play that game in the fall in the worst case it will cost another inevitable victory and at best allow the Republican party a chance to stop the bleeding.

It is not McCain's responsibility to defend congressional seats, and the money to do so does not come out of his budget. Instead, it comes out of the Republican senatorial committee.

It is not McCain's responsibility to defend congressional seats, and the money to do so does not come out of his budget. Instead, it comes out of the Republican senatorial committee.

It will still demand manpower they do not have. Plus, some of McCain's money does come out of the main GOP base.

It is not McCain's responsibility to defend congressional seats, and the money to do so does not come out of his budget. Instead, it comes out of the Republican senatorial committee.

This is incorrect. On years where a President runs, it is on the candidate to get people to the elections. They are the single greatest draw. That's McCain's job. If he doesn't get better at it, it's going to be a massacre.

It will still demand manpower they do not have. Plus, some of McCain's money does come out of the main GOP base.

I would like to point out the difference in the two parties' campaigns. Obama has about 40mil in cash on hand, while the DNC has only about 4mil. Meanwhile, partly in an effort to effectively launder money, the RNC holds about 30mil, while McCain only has about 8 or 9mil. McCain gets a lot of donations at dinners and such by putting most of the money towards the RNC, which gets sent to him anyway. Essentially bypassing the donations limits. Some campaign finance reformer he is. Maverick.

I do not guarantee the exact numbers, but you get the gist.

I would like to point out the difference in the two parties' campaigns. Obama has about 40mil in cash on hand, while the DNC has only about 4mil. Meanwhile, partly in an effort to effectively launder money, the RNC holds about 30mil, while McCain only has about 8 or 9mil. McCain gets a lot of donations at dinners and such by putting most of the money towards the RNC, which gets sent to him anyway. Essentially bypassing the donations limits. Some campaign finance reformer he is. Maverick.

I do not guarantee the exact numbers, but you get the gist.

True. And yet a decent part of the money the GOP now has will be spent trying to defend senate seats. Money, time (McCain's, Bush's, etc), and effort they would need to use against Obama. My hope is that the GOP tries to defend two fronts and ends up defending neither.

So I've been looking into the electoral college -- state trends, what the swing states are, what the polls say, etc. -- and for me, it has bolstered Clinton's case for the nomination. Obama might be able to pick up several swing states. However, the fact remains that with an Obama nomination, Florida and Ohio are both in jeopardy. Those two states account for 47 electors. To make up for those 47 lost electors, Obama would have to win Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire (which all come out to 46 electoral votes among them). Does anyone see a problem with this?

Of course Obama could very well win Ohio, or even Florida. However, with Clinton, she has a clear advantage over McCain in Ohio and Florida, besting him by 8.3 percentage points in the former (RCP average), and 3.0 percentage points in Florida (RCP average, compared to Obama being down by 8.3 percentage points). Of course, those two states aren't everything, but a loss of that many electors no doubt puts the nomination in jeopardy. With the turn of the tide in the Democrats' favor, he still has a shot. Nevertheless, Clinton would benefit from this tide too, and at the same time, have a better shot of winning these important swing states.

So I've been looking into the electoral college -- state trends, what the swing states are, what the polls say, etc. -- and for me, it has bolstered Clinton's case for the nomination. Obama might be able to pick up several swing states. However, the fact remains that with an Obama nomination, Florida and Ohio are both in jeopardy. Those two states account for 47 electors. To make up for those 47 lost electors, Obama would have to win Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire (which all come out to 46 electoral votes among them). Does anyone see a problem with this?

Of course Obama could very well win Ohio, or even Florida. However, with Clinton, she has a clear advantage over McCain in Ohio and Florida, besting him by 8.3 percentage points in the former (RCP average), and 3.0 percentage points in Florida (RCP average, compared to Obama being down by 8.3 percentage points). Of course, those two states aren't everything, but a loss of that many electors no doubt puts the nomination in jeopardy. With the turn of the tide in the Democrats' favor, he still has a shot. Nevertheless, Clinton would benefit from this tide too, and at the same time, have a better shot of winning these important swing states.

Meh. Ohio is in jeopardy while the Democratic party (part of it) is still attacking Obama. Even so, he polls even in VA, OH, wins CO, and various other states.

Seriously, does no one notice that the party is currently split almost in two? Wouldn't you be utterly freaked out if you were John McCain and while half the party is tearing down the nominee, you STILL can't beat him?

Clinton lost a 20 point lead in the primaries. What's her lead over McCain right now? Obama is polling better than Clinton against McCain right now. Not in 2 states. In 50. Obama won coming into a competition unknown and waaaaaay behind. Clinton lost as the favorite and with a 20 point lead. Yeah, I'm going to bet on Obama.

So I've been looking into the electoral college -- state trends, what the swing states are, what the polls say, etc. -- and for me, it has bolstered Clinton's case for the nomination. Obama might be able to pick up several swing states. However, the fact remains that with an Obama nomination, Florida and Ohio are both in jeopardy. Those two states account for 47 electors. To make up for those 47 lost electors, Obama would have to win Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire (which all come out to 46 electoral votes among them). Does anyone see a problem with this?

Of course Obama could very well win Ohio, or even Florida. However, with Clinton, she has a clear advantage over McCain in Ohio and Florida, besting him by 8.3 percentage points in the former (RCP average), and 3.0 percentage points in Florida (RCP average, compared to Obama being down by 8.3 percentage points). Of course, those two states aren't everything, but a loss of that many electors no doubt puts the nomination in jeopardy. With the turn of the tide in the Democrats' favor, he still has a shot. Nevertheless, Clinton would benefit from this tide too, and at the same time, have a better shot of winning these important swing states.
She had a clear advantage of upwards of 20 points in December going into the primaries. How'd that work out for her?

She had a clear advantage of upwards of 20 points in December going into the primaries. How'd that work out for her?

So we should just bet on the fact that Clinton will lose her appeal in Ohio or Florida? How about we go based on actual data, which clearly shows her having advantages there? It's a pretty flimsy argument to say that she lost a lead before, so we should assume that it'll happen again.

EDIT: What's more, Obama rose so much because, as it has been said, fewer people knew about him before the primaries. Had he been a high profile figure as Hillary before the primaries began, his numbers would have undoubtedly been bigger going in. Clinton had the celebrity and name-recognition factor going for her in those 20-point leads. It wasn't an erosion of her support as much as it was Obama gathering support due to having a higher profile.

and the VP isn't even in play yet...

So we should just bet on the fact that Clinton will lose her appeal in Ohio or Florida? How about we go based on actual data, which clearly shows her having advantages there. It's a pretty flimsy argument to say that she lost a lead before, so we should assume that it'll happen again.

Polls are a dipstick, but not a crystal ball. Dukakis was up by 12 points coming out of the primaries, that didn't work out well either. So while polls test the winds, you have to look at other things. Like the fact that going with 'electability' has sunk the Democrats in the last two contests, that +1 campaigning has lost the Democrats the last two elections, That of the two candidates one squandered a lead with name recognition where it mattered the most, within the party, while another ran a comprehensive campaign that trumped 'inevibility.' She's run on a 'day one readiness,' but she wasn't ready for the campaign that her people set the rules for until the last ten states. It seems equally flimsy to hope she gets it right this time.

Ultimately I'm not picking a pony on some half-assed electibility argument made when the party is in a dragged out fight and the Republican's are able to be more or less unopposed. EV had Obama up, now he's down a little-it's a long road to November, one of the candidates has shown a strong ability to campaign, but...

More importantly, there are differences that are important to me, like diplomacy, transparency, etc.

So we should just bet on the fact that Clinton will lose her appeal in Ohio or Florida? How about we go based on actual data, which clearly shows her having advantages there? It's a pretty flimsy argument to say that she lost a lead before, so we should assume that it'll happen again.

EDIT: What's more, Obama rose so much because, as it has been said, fewer people knew about him before the primaries. Had he been a high profile figure as Hillary before the primaries began, his numbers would have undoubtedly been bigger going in. Clinton had the celebrity and name-recognition factor going for her in those 20-point leads. It wasn't an erosion of her support as much as it was Obama gathering support due to having a higher profile.

The actual data is that Obama is being attacked by dems and repubs and Clinton isn't the focus of either. What do you think would happen if the Republican attack machine focused on her rather than praised her? And they have so much ammunition. Tons.

"The woman couldn't even handle a primary campaign. She had to have the party elites give it to her after she lost it."

aww come on guys... can't we just ignore the primary rules this one time? They were fine when Hillary was winning but now I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more like Obama is an elitist and doesn't deserve the win the Democrats gave to him. Time to just go with the gut!

and the VP isn't even in play yet...

Among other things.

aww come on guys... can't we just ignore the primary rules this one time? They were fine when Hillary was winning but now I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more like Obama is an elitist and doesn't deserve the win the Democrats gave to him. Time to just go with the gut!

Yeah, that damn Obama is so elitist that he wants to actually reach out to every one. It would be much better if he pulled the "right" states and the "right" demographics and "right" delegates. It's so amusing to me that one candidate has been pulling this, I've got the votes we need bs and the other is considered the elitist. I love when elections redefine words to mean the opposite.

Kind of like the "patriot" party not wanting to give proper benefits to soldiers lest they have too many options.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

According to DNC party lawyers, the rules don't allow for the full seating of delegates from the two states. There is some disgression but they won't get more than half. That makes the difference between the various likely plans negligible. It won't provide more than a swing of few dozen delegates. It simply can't make any difference.

EDIT: Sorry. There can't be a full seating before the convention. There is another committee that can fully seat them then. She becomes more embroiled in her own narrative. Once again, I underestimate how selfish a politician can be.

Here are comments from some of the rules committee.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10651_Page2.html

Interestingly enough, whether independent, for Obama or for Clinton, none favor a full seating (these comments were before the legal descriptions from the first article. They at that time still believed they could seat 100% if they wanted to.)

EDIT: Sorry. There can't be a full seating before the convention. There is another committee that can fully seat them then. She becomes more embroiled in her own narrative. Once again, I underestimate how selfish a politician can be.

Not to sound like a broken record, but that's really the problem. She has painted herself in a corner-even if she gets out now, her story won't let her. Eventually it won't even be about her anymore-if that hasn't already happened. I don't see a way out for her. Hell, her supporters don't see a way out for her so they've passed the buck to Obama.

Not to sound like a broken record, but that's really the problem. She has painted herself in a corner-even if she gets out now, her story won't let her. Eventually it won't even be about her anymore-if that hasn't already happened. I don't see a way out for her. Hell, her supporters don't see a way out for her so they've passed the buck to Obama.

It's too late. She said she will not get out for anything short of a full seating. That cannot happen. She has forced a fight to the convention. So many of you called that. I said she would not be so selfish. Like I say, I am constantly wrong when I bet against the selfishness of politicians.

It's so sad. Because the fact is that they seem to be trying to come to a reasonable agreement. I just don't see how she can get out no matter what the outcome is Saturday.

It's too late. She said she will not get out for anything short of a full seating. That cannot happen. She has forced a fight to the convention. So many of you called that. I said she would not be so selfish. Like I say, I am constantly wrong when I bet against the selfishness of politicians.

It's so sad. Because the fact is that they seem to be trying to come to a reasonable agreement. I just don't see how she can get out no matter what the outcome is Saturday.
Especially when it will be followed by a double digit win (likely) in Puerto Rico (a territory that matters...) After that, Montana and South Dakota will be foot notes. And there is nothing the supers can do about it.

Especially when it will be followed by a double digit win (likely) in Puerto Rico (a territory that matters...) After that, Montana and South Dakota will be foot notes. And there is nothing the supers can do about it.

She can't withdraw those claims now. It's going to look like they stole it from her. The funny part is I keep hearing all these women on television talking about how embarrassed she should be that she could just take a loss. The idea that it's a conspiracy against her is such a shame from someone as intelligent as her. And, sadly, that completely dishonest argument is actually gaining traction.

Stealing an election involves cheating of some kind. The only candidate who doesn't seem to believe the rules should apply to them is Clinton. That is so frustrating, because by creating this issue, she fulfills her own prophecy.... and likely ensures her career is over.

The truth is the solution they are likely going to end up with is the only reasonable solution still available.

The sad thing is, that if this goes much farther, they're both screwed. Because if Obama loses, unless he clearly and entirely self-destructs, it's going to look to many, many voters like she damaged him too much for him to recover. Obama will have failed to reach the highest office in the land, and she'll be finished. Her best bet is for Obama to win.

There is no scenario where Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008. Overturning the election isn't going to happen and, if it did, it would damage the electorate beyond repair. This would have been so much better if she'd just run a clean race and let the supers decide how they decide. However, instead she chose to falsely represent why she was losing, falsely represent how she is losing, falsely represent how the Obama campaign has treated her. There was no benefit to doing those things. They were unnecessary and they may be unrecoverable.

I only disagree this time in that I think it's "probably". ;)

Filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the senate, majority Democrat in congress, under a Democrat president. The dark ages would finally be over.

That would in my mind be a bad thing. The government rarely does well with one party in absolute control. Better to have gridlock, then at least they're fucking us over at a slower pace.

Clinton's Grim Scenario

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, May 27, 2008; A13

If this campaign goes on much longer, what will be left of Hillary Clinton?

A woman uniformly described by her close friends as genuine, principled and sane has been reduced to citing the timing of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination as a reason to stay in the race -- an argument that is ungenuine, unprincipled and insane. She vows to keep pushing, perhaps all the way to the convention in August. What manner of disintegration is yet to come?

For anyone who missed it, Clinton was pleading her cause before the editorial board of the Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader on Friday. Rejecting calls to drop out because her chances of winning have become so slight, she said the following: "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."

The point isn't whether you take Clinton at her word that she didn't actually mean to suggest that someone -- guess who? -- might be assassinated. The point is: Whoa, where did that come from?

Setting aside for the moment the ugliness of Clinton's remark, just try to make it hold together. Clinton's basic argument is that attempts to push her out of the race are hasty and premature, since the nomination sometimes isn't decided until June. She cites two election years, 1968 and 1992, as evidence -- but neither is relevant to 2008 because the campaign calendar has been changed.

In 1968, the Democratic race kicked off with the New Hampshire primary on March 12; when Robert Kennedy was killed, the campaign was not quite three months old. In 1992, the first contest was the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 10; by the beginning of June, candidates had been battling for about 3 1/2 months -- and it was clear that Bill Clinton would be the nominee, though he hadn't technically wrapped it up.

This year, the Iowa caucuses were held on Jan. 3, the earliest date ever. Other states scrambled to move their contests up in the calendar as well. When June arrives, the candidates will have been slogging through primaries and caucuses for five full months -- a good deal longer than in those earlier campaign cycles.

So Clinton's disturbing remark wasn't wishful thinking -- as far as I know (to quote Clinton herself, when asked earlier this year about false rumors that her opponent Barack Obama is a Muslim). Clearly, it wasn't logical thinking. It can only have been magical thinking, albeit not the happy-magic kind.

Clinton has always claimed to be the cold-eyed realist in the race, and at one point maybe she was. Increasingly, though, her words and actions reflect the kind of thinking that animates myths and fairy tales: Maybe a sudden and powerful storm will scatter my enemy's ships. Maybe a strapping woodsman will come along and save the day.

Clinton has poured more than $11 million of her own money into the campaign, with no guarantee of ever getting it back. She has changed slogans and themes the way Obama changes his ties. She has been the first major-party presidential candidate in memory to tout her appeal to white voters. She has abandoned any pretense of consistency, inventing new rationales for continuing her candidacy and new yardsticks for measuring its success whenever the old rationales and yardsticks begin to favor Obama.

It could be that any presidential campaign requires a measure of blind faith. But there's a difference between having faith in a dream and being lost in a delusion. The former suggests inner strength; the latter, an inner meltdown.

What Clinton's evocation of RFK suggests isn't that she had some tactical reason for speaking the unspeakable but that she and her closest advisers can't stop running and rerunning through their minds the most far-fetched scenarios, no matter how absurd or even obscene. She gives the impression of having spent long nights convincing herself that the stars really might still align for her -- that something can still happen to make the Democratic Party realize how foolish it has been.

Clinton campaigns as if she knows she will leave some Democrats with bad feelings. That's the Clinton way: Ask forgiveness, not permission. But every day, as more superdelegates trickle to Obama's side, it becomes a surer bet that she will not win. She and her family enjoy good health and fabulous wealth. They'll be fine -- unless, while losing this race for the nomination, Hillary Clinton also loses her soul.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601743_pf.html

At this point, seeing as she's gone from “All of a sudden you get all these veiled messages, frankly, that were racist,” Mrs. Clinton said of the convention. “I may not have been able to explain it, but I could feel it.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&adxnnlx=1211973642-//Dti3HAH9JKv/BPr3WMpw) to doctoring Obama's picture to make him look "blacker" (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408), she's already lost her soul. :(

The sad thing is, that if this goes much farther, they're both screwed. Because if Obama loses, unless he clearly and entirely self-destructs, it's going to look to many, many voters like she damaged him too much for him to recover. Obama will have failed to reach the highest office in the land, and she'll be finished. Her best bet is for Obama to win.

There is no scenario where Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008. Overturning the election isn't going to happen and, if it did, it would damage the electorate beyond repair. This would have been so much better if she'd just run a clean race and let the supers decide how they decide. However, instead she chose to falsely represent why she was losing, falsely represent how she is losing, falsely represent how the Obama campaign has treated her. There was no benefit to doing those things. They were unnecessary and they may be unrecoverable.

Indeed. The delusional are sad people.

There is one way by which she might end up conceding, and that is if the superdelegates go to Obama shortly after June 3. But, quite frankly, if she keeps trying to screw with the rules MORE, that's because she's just not a person. Clinton outlived her usefulness when she was born.

As for the morons that are sending shoes and oranges, I'd be glad to tell them where to store the objects.

Politics. Obama claims to be the voice of a new political reality, but some of the tactics employed by his followers are really similar to things we saw in 2000 and 2004.

Hmm, yet Hillary supporters are doing the exact same thing.

The move comes days after backers of Hillary Clinton’s White House run announced plans to converge on the Washington, D.C. hotel where members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee are meeting.

“Hillary Clinton's supporters are going to be bussing in protestors for the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, so it's critical that we show up for the counter-protest,” wrote on organizer in a post on the Daily Kos Web site Tuesday morning.

So Hillary supporters planed on this even first. Obama supporters "days later" react so that their side can be heard as well. How dare Obama supporters do what Hillary supporters are already doing!!!! I smell rampant sexism here.

It is not McCain's responsibility to defend congressional seats, and the money to do so does not come out of his budget. Instead, it comes out of the Republican senatorial committee.

down ballot effect?

Indeed. The delusional are sad people.

I wonder if it's delusion or just a thirst for revenge now, at the expense of the entire country.

In short, I wonder if she's insane or plain evil.

she's already lost her soul. :(

That assumes she had one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

According to DNC party lawyers, the rules don't allow for the full seating of delegates from the two states. There is some disgression but they won't get more than half. That makes the difference between the various likely plans negligible. It won't provide more than a swing of few dozen delegates. It simply can't make any difference.

EDIT: Sorry. There can't be a full seating before the convention. There is another committee that can fully seat them then. She becomes more embroiled in her own narrative. Once again, I underestimate how selfish a politician can be.

Here are comments from some of the rules committee.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10651_Page2.html

Interestingly enough, whether independent, for Obama or for Clinton, none favor a full seating (these comments were before the legal descriptions from the first article. They at that time still believed they could seat 100% if they wanted to.)

So which delegates would go? From which districts?

Oh, and it looks like the long battle has had an impact on the ability of the DNC itself to raise money for the convention. Way to go, Hillary...

You realize that in a year where running against the Republicans is a "gimme", the Democrats appear to be doing everything they can to fuck themselves.

You realize that in a year where running against the Republicans is a "gimme", the Democrats appear to be doing everything they can to fuck themselves.

I think Hillary is doing everything SHE can to fuck the Democrats.

As for how they'd be seated, each would be given half a vote.

I think Hillary is doing everything SHE can to fuck the Democrats.

Why doesn't the DNC and the superdelgates just step in and shut her the fuck up?

Why doesn't the DNC and the superdelgates just step in and shut her the fuck up?

If I knew I'd be working towards removing the cause, not discussing in a forum. :p

Why doesn't the DNC and the superdelgates just step in and shut her the fuck up?

Because then they'd just be picking on her because she's a woman and Hillary would whine, and bitch, and cry, and play the victim. End result is you really torque off a bunch of fairly reliable Democrat voters just to shut up one really off her rocker "candidate".

A little bit of history. I have stated that Obama can't win the general election, at least without Clinton as his running mate. Perhaps he needs to give that some serious consideration when mulling over the interesting fact that:

No Democrat has won the White House without West Virginia since 1916 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4846784).

Adding to her electability argument, Clinton repeatedly reminded voters over the last week that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia, a state that voted for former President Clinton in 1992 and 1996 but voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Hillary's solid win in West Virginia should at least get some people thinking.

Also of note from the article:

The Clintons made 30 campaign stops in West Virginia, while Obama made three, and the many appearances the former president made may have paid off. A large majority of Clinton voters said Bill Clinton's campaigning was important to their vote, preliminary exit poll results suggest.
I guess that Obama is demonstrating that "every state matters", but obviously some matter less?

Because then they'd just be picking on her because she's a woman and Hillary would whine, and bitch, and cry, and play the victim. End result is you really torque off a bunch of fairly reliable Democrat voters just to shut up one really off her rocker "candidate".

Oh, so this is battle of the set-upon minorities?

If you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist asshole...

If you don't vote for Hillary, you're a misogynist asshole...

Oh, I get it now... you can't win for pissing off a large part of the party...