NationStates Jolt Archive

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).


Hillary's solid win in West Virginia should at least get some people thinking.

Also of note from the article:


I guess that Obama is demonstrating that "every state matters", but obviously some matter less?

1- No woman candidate ever won the White House either. If you play WV card, I'll play this one.

2- You actually praise the words of a woman who OUTRIGHT SAID that only a few states matter over those of a man that actually campaigned in all states because he campaigned less than her in one he knew she'd win?

Once again, electoral maps based on recent polls show increased strength for both Obama and Clinton, but Clinton would clobber McCain, whilst Obama would need to win Indiana or Virginia to win the Presidency:

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May28.html): Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL KY MO NV NM NC OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May28.html): Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties 24

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

Even at RCP, the polls that have been garnered over the past 10 days show that Hillary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html) is faring better than Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html).

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...

Well the Obama camp isn't playing the race card, or if they have it's been subtle. Hillary on the other hand screams out a new conspiracy against her daily by the evil sexists. I started out not really liking her, but now I've moved into the realm of pity. I really hope she figures a way out while she still has some dignity left intact.

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).


Hillary's solid win in West Virginia should at least get some people thinking.

Also of note from the article:


I guess that Obama is demonstrating that "every state matters", but obviously some matter less?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_swing_voters;_ylt=Ah1TTCF88cSKTLEpSqhhNPSs0NUE

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama has done poorly in the Democratic primaries with women, Catholics and others who will be pivotal in this fall's presidential election. Yet early polling shows that with several of these groups, he's competitive when matched against Republican John McCain.


A look at voters who have been closely contested in recent presidential elections — or veered from one party to the other, making them true swing groups — shows a significant number have leaned toward Obama's rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the primaries. Besides women and Catholics, these include the elderly, the less educated and suburbanites, leading Clinton to argue that this makes her the Democrats' stronger candidate for the fall campaign.

Yet Obama's performance with these voters in the primaries doesn't necessarily mean he'd do poorly with them in the general election, assuming he nails down the last few convention delegates he needs to win the nomination.

Polls this month show the Illinois senator leading McCain among women, running even with him among Catholics and suburbanites and trailing him with people over age 65. Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton — whites who have not completed college — he's doing about the same with them as the past two Democratic presidential candidates.

Obama is doing well against McCain with groups he has dominated in the primaries. Polls show him ahead of the Arizona senator with young people and college graduates, though the results vary from poll to poll among independents.

To be sure, Obama's poor performance with some groups in the primaries cannot be ignored. His task of wooing them could be complicated by McCain's attempts to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters and by the strong emotions Obama's long-running competition with Clinton has aroused. In recent contests, only half her supporters have said they would vote for Obama against McCain in the fall.

"I won't vote, or I'll go for McCain," said Maureen Brown, 53, of Philadelphia, a Clinton supporter who said she thinks Obama is too inexperienced. "Our options are pretty bad."

Yet Election Day is more than five months away, with tons of campaign money yet to be spent trying to influence voters like Brown who by then will be more focused on party identification and issues than they are today.

Obama's aim won't necessarily be to win majorities with the swing groups Clinton has dominated. Rather, he'll want to do well enough with them that when combined with the well educated, blacks, the young and other groups that are his strength, he'll snare the electoral votes he needs.

Women have preferred Clinton over Obama by 7 percentage points in this year's Democratic primaries, according to exit polls of voters. But when matched against McCain this month, Obama was ahead among women by 5 points in the Gallup Poll, 13 points in a poll by Quinnipiac University and 20 points in a survey by CBS News and The New York Times.

"I don't think those women voting for Hillary Clinton in the primaries will find John McCain more attractive" than Obama, said Mark Watts, a Democratic pollster.

Women voted for John Kerry by just 3 points in the 2004 general election, but favored fellow Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1996 by larger margins.

White women are especially in play in November, and they have voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama by a decisive 24 points. Polling this month shows mixed results over whether Obama or McCain is ahead with this group.

They leaned solidly toward President Bush in 2004, split about evenly between Bush and Gore in 2000, and tilted slightly toward President Clinton in 1996.

In addition:

_Though Obama trails Hillary Clinton by 25 points among Catholics in the primaries, he and McCain are dividing them about evenly in national polls. Catholics, a quarter of the 2004 electorate, backed Bush narrowly that year, leaned slightly to Gore in 2000 and heavily toward President Clinton in 1996.

_Obama leads McCain slightly among suburban residents, though he narrowly trailed Hillary Clinton with these voters. This group was nearly half of all voters in 2004 and favored Bush slightly that year and in 2000, while President Clinton had the edge in 1996.

_People without college degrees are tilting toward Obama over McCain, even though they have preferred Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Whites who haven't finished college have favored Clinton over Obama in the primaries by 30 points, and prefer McCain over Obama, by up to 20 points in the Gallup Poll. Yet that's in the range of recent Democratic losses with this group — Bush won them by 23 points in 2004 and 17 points in 2000, while GOP candidate Bob Dole won them narrowly in 1996.

_Obama trails Clinton by 24 points among voters age 65 and older. McCain is well ahead of Obama in the Gallup and Quinnipiac polls, but they're about even in the CBS/Times poll. The elderly leaned by small margins toward Bush in 2004, Gore in 2000 and President Clinton in 1996.

For Republicans who have long dominated among men and whites, the place you start looking to capture votes from Democrats is those who have stayed with Hillary Clinton and culturally conservative Democrats, like working-class white voters, said GOP pollster Neil Newhouse.

In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll last month, about a quarter of Clinton supporters and one in six white Democrats who have not finished college said they would back McCain should Obama be the Democratic nominee, with roughly a quarter of each undecided.

"That provides us with a target-rich environment," Newhouse said.

The exit poll data is based on responses from more than 44,000 voters in 33 states that have held Democratic primaries this year; nearly 14,000 people who voted nationally in 2004; about 13,000 who voted in 2000; and about 16,000 who voted in 1996. The margin of sampling error for each was plus or minus 1 percentage point, larger for some subgroups. Also included were figures from national polls conducted this month by Quinnipiac, Gallup , and CBS with the Times.

This little study includes an extremely large sampling size. For this reason their MOE is lower, which is preferred. It's not just a matter of how a divided party is doing right at the moment. The long view is to see what a united Democratic party behind Barack Obama can do against John McCain. Those stats look better as each day passes. With time and money Barack can drive these numbers and allow them to continue to grow.

Once again, electoral maps based on recent polls show increased strength for both Obama and Clinton, but Clinton would clobber McCain, whilst Obama would need to win Indiana or Virginia to win the Presidency:

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May28.html): Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL KY MO NV NM NC OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May28.html): Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties 24

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

Even at RCP, the polls that have been garnered over the past 10 days show that Hillary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html) is faring better than Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html).

Which is absolutely completely and totally irrelevant. Hillary cannot under any circumstance short of assassinating Obama win the nomination. She cannot do it.

Once again, electoral maps based on recent polls show increased strength for both Obama and Clinton, but Clinton would clobber McCain, whilst Obama would need to win Indiana or Virginia to win the Presidency:

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May28.html): Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL KY MO NV NM NC OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May28.html): Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties 24

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

Even at RCP, the polls that have been garnered over the past 10 days show that Hillary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html) is faring better than Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html).

See my subsequent post regarding Obama's electability. It includes using a much larger set of stats than this electoral-vote.com uses. When looking closer at the details of even that site, things do not look as bad for Obama as you would like to claim.

1- No woman candidate ever won the White House either. If you play WV card, I'll play this one.
Also no African-American candidate has won the White House. I was just supplying food for thought.

2- You actually praise the words of a woman who OUTRIGHT SAID that only a few states matter over those of a man that actually campaigned in all states because he campaigned less than her in one he knew she'd win?
Hillary "OUTRIGHT SAID that only a few states matter"?

Link?

I started out not really liking her, but now I've moved into the realm of pity.

Funny, I started out not minding her, but now I've moved into the realm of full, outright hatred.

Yet another instance of a Democrat fabricating war experience. You'd think they would have learned after seeing how well it worked for John Kerry. And since Obama has none of his own, he has to fabricate someone else's... On Memorial Day, Obama claimed that his uncle helped liberate the Nazis' Auschwitz concentration camp.

Oops.

What's the difference between Auschwitz and Buchenwald? Nothing, nothing if you ask Obama. How about if you check the history books? Well, it turns out that about a million people were exterminated at Auschwitz. Buchenwald was mainly a forced labor camp, where about 50,000 people died.

Who did liberate Auschwitz? Not even the United States... The Red Army had that honor.

When are the real candidates going to show up?

Which is absolutely completely and totally irrelevant. Hillary cannot under any circumstance short of assassinating Obama win the nomination. She cannot do it.

This is the meat and bones of this argument. Hillary will not be the nominee, period.

Which is absolutely completely and totally irrelevant. Hillary cannot under any circumstance short of assassinating Obama win the nomination. She cannot do it.
I wouldn't exactly call it irrelevant. I am sure that many Democrats are concerned whether they can win the general. I suggest an Obama/Hillary ticket is the best, perhaps only way that will happen.

Also no African-American candidate has won the White House. I was just supplying food for thought.


Hillary "OUTRIGHT SAID that only a few states matter"?

Link?

By your logic, McCain will win the White House no matter what is done. Furthermore, if a plague wipes WV off the map, no Democrat will ever win the White House again.

"I'm winning the states that matter."

The presupposition is that certain states matter. Since she's not winning ALL states, she's saying that only certain states matter.

...your move, sir?

Once again, electoral maps based on recent polls show increased strength for both Obama and Clinton, but Clinton would clobber McCain, whilst Obama would need to win Indiana or Virginia to win the Presidency:

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May28.html): Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL KY MO NV NM NC OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May28.html): Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties 24

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

Even at RCP, the polls that have been garnered over the past 10 days show that Hillary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html) is faring better than Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html).

Here's the big thing about this electoral vote site. It has polls that are outdated and pretty much Irrelevant. For instance, the last poll they have for NJ on the Clinton chart is from April 28th. Anyone else see that as being too far in the past and not applicable to the race today? OOOH, I DO!

I wouldn't exactly call it irrelevant. I am sure that many Democrats are concerned whether they can win the general. I suggest an Obama/Hillary ticket is the best, perhaps only way that will happen.

Hillary is possibly the worst VP pick. Absolutely horrible. There's no reason why Obama should take her onto his ticket. Two or three months ago sure, after her absolute meltdown since then there's no reason to. She's burned too much credibility, and she doesn't help him as much as she hurts him. Taking her on goes against everything he's campaigned on so far.

Yet another instance of a Democrat fabricating war experience. You'd think they would have learned after seeing how well it worked for John Kerry.

1- He didn't fabricate, it was actual experience. He misquoted a camp. And that not even Clinton or McCain are making an issue out of it should tell you something.

2- So you must see your country as really cowardly, for giving Kerry all those Purple Hearts.

3- If THAT is all you have against Obama, McCain is going down. Good, the world will be safe from Republicans.

This is the meat and bones of this argument. Hillary will not be the nominee, period.

There is already an unofficial office pool taking bets on how long Obama survives and whether or not Hillary will take the nomination "by force".

I would not put it past her or her loyal organization.

You may say I'm just paranoid for believing that Vince Foster was killed, and the billing records taken to protect Hillary by her current campaign manager (they were rediscovered in Hillary's bedroom in the White House, and then "lost" before they could be examined).

If Obama goes the way of Bobby Kennedy, I'll log on here and tell you "I told you so."

Also no African-American candidate has won the White House. I was just supplying food for thought.


Hillary "OUTRIGHT SAID that only a few states matter"?

Link?

She didn't outright say it...But "firewall" much? 90% of communication is non-verbal.

1- He didn't fabricate, it was actual experience. He misquoted a camp. And that not even Clinton or McCain are making an issue out of it should tell you something.

2- So you must see your country as really cowardly, for giving Kerry all those Purple Hearts.

3- If THAT is all you have against Obama, McCain is going down. Good, the world will be safe from Republicans.

Misquoted. Depending on which speech you read or heard, it's "grandfather, uncle, or great uncle".

Technically, it's great uncle. He doesn't have an uncle.

Misspeaking, he's made it Auschwitz, or even Treblinka, over time, but never the correct camp. Or the same "relative".

I think he's pulling it out of his ass.

It's not "all" I have against him. But this sort of thing makes him look as ignorant as President Ford did when he said (in the 1970s) that "Poland is free."

She didn't outright say it...But "firewall" much? 90% of communication is non-verbal.

By applying basic linguistics, yes, she did say it:

"I'm winning the states that matter."

The presupposition is that certain states matter. Since she's not winning ALL states, she's saying that only certain states matter.

...your move, sir?

There is already an unofficial office pool taking bets on how long Obama survives and whether or not Hillary will take the nomination "by force".

I would not put it past her or her loyal organization.

You may say I'm just paranoid for believing that Vince Foster was killed, and the billing records taken to protect Hillary by her current campaign manager (they were rediscovered in Hillary's bedroom in the White House, and then "lost" before they could be examined).

If Obama goes the way of Bobby Kennedy, I'll log on here and tell you "I told you so."

Well, I think she'd not do it ANYMORE. Not after her mentioning the assassination.

Yet another instance of a Democrat fabricating war experience. You'd think they would have learned after seeing how well it worked for John Kerry. And since Obama has none of his own, he has to fabricate someone else's... On Memorial Day, Obama claimed that his uncle helped liberate the Nazis' Auschwitz concentration camp.

Oops.

What's the difference between Auschwitz and Buchenwald? Nothing, nothing if you ask Obama. How about if you check the history books? Well, it turns out that about a million people were exterminated at Auschwitz. Buchenwald was mainly a forced labor camp, where about 50,000 people died.

Who did liberate Auschwitz? Not even the United States... The Red Army had that honor.

When are the real candidates going to show up?

Mistakingly naming one concentration camp over another is "Fabricated war experience?" It couldn't just have been a mistake. Finally, before you do the whole great-Uncle thing... My Uncle Tony (a proud Marine) died two weeks ago. I never bothered to put great in front of Uncle. I doubt most of us do in most situations.

Lastly, how dare you of all people still propagate this lie regarding John Kerry? He may be of a different party, but that's not reaqson enough to be a douche. Three purple hearts and the Navy Cross with a V for valor are not just handed out willy nilly. You say you are ex-military, so do your awards mean dick? Do mine get invalidated because someone decides to start a rumor? If it were others saying this I would not be nearly as pissed. But you damn well know better. Kindly cut the horseshit please.

Well, I think she'd not do it ANYMORE. Not after her mentioning the assassination.

1. Her loyal aide emptied Vince Foster's office in defiance of law enforcement.
2. This loyal aide is currently her campaign manager.
3. Other loyal aides in this campaign have said terrible smears, and then resigned - falling on their sword for Hillary, yet trying to advance her cause without Hillary getting dirt on her.
4. I believe she said that remark because they've been discussing it.

Sort of a, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome...."

Well, I think she'd not do it ANYMORE. Not after her mentioning the assassination.

Lots of folk have died around the Clintons, honestly wouldn't surprise me. I doubt she'd do it, but I wouldn't be shocked.

Misquoted. Depending on which speech you read or heard, it's "grandfather, uncle, or great uncle".

Technically, it's great uncle. He doesn't have an uncle.

Misspeaking, he's made it Auschwitz, or even Treblinka, over time, but never the correct camp. Or the same "relative".

I think he's pulling it out of his ass.

It's not "all" I have against him. But this sort of thing makes him look as ignorant as President Ford did when he said (in the 1970s) that "Poland is free."

1- "Hello, great-uncle-removed Bob, good to see you" sounds that much worse than "Hello, uncle Bob, good to see you".

2- Your only reason to think that is you'd not vote for him anyways.

3- Oh boy. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't exactly call it irrelevant. I am sure that many Democrats are concerned whether they can win the general. I suggest an Obama/Hillary ticket is the best, perhaps only way that will happen.

F#ckin A man. I just looked at the Georgia numbers they are using for that electoral site. They are from May of 2006. Seriously, go back and look at it. I have now declared this site severally limited, bordering on useless.

1- "Hello, great-uncle-removed Bob, good to see you" sounds that much worse than "Hello, uncle Bob, good to see you".

2- Your only reason to think that is you'd not vote for him anyways.

3- Oh boy. :rolleyes:

Accuracy is critical, for world leaders and news organizations.

If people are going to make sport of Republicans for being inaccurate

Gerald Ford - "Poland is Free!"

Dan Quayle - "Potatoe"

George Bush - so many now we call them "Bushisms"

then we have to hold Democrats (any of them) to the same exacting standard.

raaaaah Democrats!

raaaaah Republicans!
Jeez guys, get a room.

There is already an unofficial office pool taking bets on how long Obama survives and whether or not Hillary will take the nomination "by force".

I would not put it past her or her loyal organization.

You may say I'm just paranoid for believing that Vince Foster was killed, and the billing records taken to protect Hillary by her current campaign manager (they were rediscovered in Hillary's bedroom in the White House, and then "lost" before they could be examined).

If Obama goes the way of Bobby Kennedy, I'll log on here and tell you "I told you so."

Oh trust me, I put nothing past the Clintons... Conspiracy theories aside. I'm just claiming that it is highly unlikely.

The closest agency to pick Presidents and nominees come from the betting world. Here are the odds for 2008 at the current time. http://www.aspiresite.com/americasline/newsite/PresidentialOdds2008.asp

Mistakingly naming one concentration camp over another is "Fabricated war experience?" It couldn't just have been a mistake. Finally, before you do the whole great-Uncle thing... My Uncle Tony (a proud Marine) died two weeks ago. I never bothered to put great in front of Uncle. I doubt most of us do in most situations.

Lastly, how dare you of all people still propagate this lie regarding John Kerry? He may be of a different party, but that's not reaqson enough to be a douche. Three purple hearts and the Navy Cross with a V for valor are not just handed out willy nilly. You say you are ex-military, so do your awards mean dick? Do mine get invalidated because someone decides to start a rumor? If it were others saying this I would not be nearly as pissed. But you damn well know better. Kindly cut the horseshit please.

Republicans are just irked they can't beat him over the head with what he did in Vietnam. What with him having been a kid at the time. They have to come up with something to try and pull military votes away from him. Right now he's outdoing McCain in that demographic.

Republicans are just irked they can't beat him over the head with what he did in Vietnam. What with him having been a kid at the time. They have to come up with something to try and pull military votes away from him. Right now he's outdoing McCain in that demographic.

HE'S BEATING MCCAIN IN THE MILITARY?

FANTASTIC! MAGNIFICENT!!! :D

Accuracy is critical, for world leaders and news organizations.

If people are going to make sport of Republicans for being inaccurate

Gerald Ford - "Poland is Free!"

Dan Quayle - "Potatoe"

George Bush - so many now we call them "Bushisms"

then we have to hold Democrats (any of them) to the same exacting standard.

Yes accuracy is important. Now, what's more important: getting the events in your family's life before you were born right, or the players in the war the candidate wants to continue? (http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/e7c28949-397a-4f65-bf53-cd91c258bd86)

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

I can't remember exactly when my Grandfather broke the land speed record, or even which record it was-that won't prevent me from getting a job nor should it, but if I think the electricians are the ones that record the sound, I think someone might think twice about hiring me...just sayin'...

Yes accuracy is important. Now, what's more important: getting the events in your family's life before you were born right, or the players in the war the candidate wants to continue? (http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/e7c28949-397a-4f65-bf53-cd91c258bd86)

I can't remember exactly when my Grandfather broke the land speed record, or even which record it was-that won't prevent me from getting a job nor should it, but if I think the electricians are the ones that record the sound, I think someone might think twice about hiring me...just sayin'...

I have no problem with you pointing that out, either.

I think that Obama is merely chanting Auschwitz because he's in real trouble with Jewish donors (he could care less about Jewish voters, because there are not that many). As core donors to the DNC, he needs to assure them that he doesn't really want to give Hamas and Iran the chance to repeat the Holocaust.

I actually believe he would sell the Jews out - in exchance for peace. Mind you, it would be the peace of the dead.

I actually believe he would sell the Jews out - in exchance for peace. Mind you, it would be the peace of the dead.

I actually believe McCain would start World War III due to the belief Right-wingers have in some old texts.

I actually believe McCain would love to coup in a puppet government in my country, and in the entire South America.

I actually believe McCain is a demon.

See, I can make outlandish remarks too, and likely these are closer to the truth than yours.

I have no problem with you pointing that out, either.

I think that Obama is merely chanting Auschwitz because he's in real trouble with Jewish donors (he could care less about Jewish voters, because there are not that many). As core donors to the DNC, he needs to assure them that he doesn't really want to give Hamas and Iran the chance to repeat the Holocaust.

I actually believe he would sell the Jews out - in exchance for peace. Mind you, it would be the peace of the dead.

I'd have to say you're deluded if you believe given the massive collective guilt in the US over the first Holocaust that we'd ever let it happen again.

Hmm, yet Hillary supporters are doing the exact same thing.



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.

The main difference is that while Clinton encourages protesting, Obama would rather his folks not- (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-urges-supporters-not-to-demonstrate-at-dnc-meeting-2008-05-28.html)
In an internal campaign e-mail obtained by The Hill, the Obama campaign states, “We look forward to the meeting proceeding smoothly — and we’re asking our supporters not to show up to demonstrate, passionately as they feel about this campaign.”
...
But the Obama campaign wants to avoid heated intraparty confrontations that would attract national headlines and be replayed on the cable news networks. Saturday’s potential public relations nightmare comes as the Obama campaign is taking steps to unify the party as the Democratic primary process appears to be winding down.
At least someone is thinking of the party...

I'd have to say you're deluded if you believe given the massive collective guilt in the US over the first Holocaust that we'd ever let it happen again.

Anyone who would willingly "negotiate" in good faith with Hamas would be inviting exactly that.

I actually believe McCain would start World War III due to the belief Right-wingers have in some old texts.

I actually believe McCain would love to coup in a puppet government in my country, and in the entire South America.

I actually believe McCain is a demon.

See, I can make outlandish remarks too, and likely these are closer to the truth than yours.

It's closer to the truth to say that Obama wants to negotiate in good faith with Hamas.

There's only one problem with that - they want only one thing - death to every Jew in Palestine.

It's closer to the truth to say that Obama wants to negotiate in good faith with Hamas.

There's only one problem with that - they want only one thing - death to every Jew in Palestine.

And you choose to believe, willingly, yes, that negotiating equals conceding.

Did you ever walk into a store and ask about the price of a product only to refuse it after the price was too high? You did? Then you did what you seem to believe is impossible: You negotiated and refused the terms offered in the negotiation.

So, what is your point?

McCain would be the bane of the world.

Anyone who would willingly "negotiate" in good faith with Hamas would be inviting exactly that.

You mean like McCain has called for, as well as Bush's advisers?

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

Seriously. Doesn't just about everyone refer to great aunts and uncles just as "Uncle or Aunt [first name]"?

Man, I've got an aunt (who my mother also grew up calling aunt) who isn't even related to us by blood. She was a close family friend and my mother's godmother. I have another uncle (again, who my mother also called uncle) who is actually my grandmother's cousin. Without looking it up on a chart, I honestly couldn't tell you what that makes him to me.

My family hails from opposite ends of the country, and in both of them "aunt" and "uncle" seem to be catchall terms for "someone at least a generation older who is related to me somehow or might as well be".

my mother also called uncle

What did your mother also give up on?

(Sorry) :D

You mean like McCain has called for, as well as Bush's advisers?

They are equally fools.

Negotiating with someone who has only one untenable demand is useless, unless you have a position of strength (We're going to kill you all if you don't comply in the next 20 minutes).

Obviously, given his written dislike of Israel in the past, Obama isn't going to make Hamas concede anything - he's looking to Israel to concede.

And just what would they concede? Their lives?

They are equally fools.

Negotiating with someone who has only one untenable demand is useless, unless you have a position of strength (We're going to kill you all if you don't comply in the next 20 minutes).

Obviously, given his written dislike of Israel in the past, Obama isn't going to make Hamas concede anything - he's looking to Israel to concede.

And just what would they concede? Their lives?

It's better than McCain, who has written in blood that he wants to destroy the world in the name of God.

Now, will you quit making outlandish claims or should I continue to top them?

It's better than McCain, who has written in blood that he wants to destroy the world in the name of God.

Now, will you quit making outlandish claims or should I continue to top them?

I'm not making outlandish claims. You should listen to more Obama speeches and find out what he wants for Israel and the Palestinians. Go back a year or two though.

my grandmother's cousin. Without looking it up on a chart, I honestly couldn't tell you what that makes him to me. .

First cousin twice removed, I'm thinking?

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.

Counter-protesting?

I'm not making outlandish claims. You should listen to more Obama speeches and find out what he wants for Israel and the Palestinians. Go back a year or two though.

McCain wants a 100 years war in Iraq, war with Iran, and, in short, to make the world into his twisted image.

Meanwhile, if you have the speeches, by all means, post them. Your claim, your burden of proof.

They are equally fools.

Negotiating with someone who has only one untenable demand is useless, unless you have a position of strength (We're going to kill you all if you don't comply in the next 20 minutes).

Obviously, given his written dislike of Israel in the past, Obama isn't going to make Hamas concede anything - he's looking to Israel to concede.

And just what would they concede? Their lives?

Yes, we should just destroy the infidels. The chickenhawks are always so much more anxious to shed blood than to hold peaceful talks. I'll take the talks, thanks all the same.

McCain wants a 100 years war in Iraq, war with Iran, and, in short, to make the world into his twisted image.

Meanwhile, if you have the speeches, by all means, post them. Your claim, your burden of proof.

The 100 years war in Iraq is an exaggeration. It is NOT what he said.

Anyone who would willingly "negotiate" in good faith with Hamas would be inviting exactly that.

How true, much better to just blow up everyone. Might makes right you know, and since we've got most of the guns that makes us more right than the people with fewer guns. So we'll invade Iran, and hope that they haven't learned shit from watching us flounder in Iraq for six plus years. However since Iranians aren't stupid I'd bet they have learned. All you'll end up with is our force stretched even further, Bin Ladin still on the loose, and giving Al Qaeda plenty of new recruiting material.


Brilliant plan there.

Seriously. Doesn't just about everyone refer to great aunts and uncles just as "Uncle or Aunt [first name]"?

Man, I've got an aunt (who my mother also grew up calling aunt) who isn't even related to us by blood. She was a close family friend and my mother's godmother. I have another uncle (again, who my mother also called uncle) who is actually my grandmother's cousin. Without looking it up on a chart, I honestly couldn't tell you what that makes him to me.

My family hails from opposite ends of the country, and in both of them "aunt" and "uncle" seem to be catchall terms for "someone at least a generation older who is related to me somehow or might as well be".

I agree. I mean, I call a lot of my father's childhood friends "uncle," despite a lack of any blood relations.

The 100 years war in Iraq is an exaggeration. It is NOT what he said.

Did Obama at any point claim "dislike" of Israel? I'm copycating here.

Did Obama at any point claim "dislike" of Israel?
Yeah, he said he didn't like its haircut.

Accuracy is critical, for world leaders and news organizations.

If people are going to make sport of Republicans for being inaccurate

Gerald Ford - "Poland is Free!"

Dan Quayle - "Potatoe"

George Bush - so many now we call them "Bushisms"

then we have to hold Democrats (any of them) to the same exacting standard.

McCain - "Who are we fighting again?"

He got a minor detail that doesn't matter to anyone other than his family wrong. It has shite to do with his ability to lead.

Did Obama at any point claim "dislike" of Israel? I'm copycating here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”

Hmm... The only claim that Hamas is making is that they want every Jew dead so they can have Palestine back.

Not every Palestinian wants all the Jews dead - but it's the official Hamas position. Palestinians in general want the right of return - and that's it.

So, how is Hamas' claim for the death of all Jews a "legitimate" claim?

they can have Palestine back.

THAT is their claims, no more, no less.

THAT is their claims, no more, no less.

No, it isn't. In general, Palestinians want it back. But Hamas' demands are the death of the Jews and the destruction of Israel (literally - destroy all the Jews' stuff).

Kind of hard to see that as "legitimate".

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.

I'm pretty sure it's just you. You're looking for certain things to be there, so you see them, whether they are or not.

That he believes that he will be one of the great Presidents like Reagan, because he is the transformative one.

And he's made it clear that he doesn't think he'll be transformative because of any particular aspect of himself, although he hopes to live up to it. He thinks he'll be a transformative leader more because of where the nation is right now.


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.

In other words, you assume that Obama supporters are only concerned with Obama. You flat-out state that your concern is helping Clinton.

Where are the people actually trying to do what is fair?

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 may not officially be his responsibility, but traditionally it has been part of the job of the presidential nominee. And some of the money from the RNC is generally used in hotly contested seats.

No, it isn't. In general, Palestinians want it back. But Hamas' demands are the death of the Jews and the destruction of Israel (literally - destroy all the Jews' stuff).

Kind of hard to see that as "legitimate".

So, Obama endorses the Hamas claim (and claims are claims of property) to dead jews (or their corpses), but doesn't endorse violence for that?

Which means you're claiming Obama supports the notion that Hamas should have the rights to the corpses of Israelis dead of natural causes?

Well... Why don't you go ask him about that one?

No, it isn't. In general, Palestinians want it back. But Hamas' demands are the death of the Jews and the destruction of Israel (literally - destroy all the Jews' stuff).

Kind of hard to see that as "legitimate".

That's a violent act, now isn't it. That would be that blind alley of violence, then, wouldn't it? Yes, yes it would...

The conversation started with conspiracy theories that Clinton is going to assassinate Obama and claims that Kerry "fabricated" his war experience, why is there a need to go further? Is there actually some worry that such things are going to be taken seriously?

I mean, come on, he claimed they have an office pool on whether Obama will be killed. No office in the country is that detached from reality. He's pulling your chain.

He's pulling your chain.

He thinks he's pulling my chain. He's actually entertaining me.

So which delegates would go? From which districts?

I think I've heard plans to send all of them but only give them 1/2 votes. That would probably be the best if they need to strip 1/2 of the delegates.

I think I've heard plans to send all of them but only give them 1/2 votes. That would probably be the best if they need to strip 1/2 of the delegates.

OR they could send in all of the delegates but half of them have to go naked. *nods*

Yet another instance of a Democrat fabricating war experience. You'd think they would have learned after seeing how well it worked for John Kerry. And since Obama has none of his own, he has to fabricate someone else's... On Memorial Day, Obama claimed that his uncle helped liberate the Nazis' Auschwitz concentration camp.

Oops.

What's the difference between Auschwitz and Buchenwald? Nothing, nothing if you ask Obama. How about if you check the history books? Well, it turns out that about a million people were exterminated at Auschwitz. Buchenwald was mainly a forced labor camp, where about 50,000 people died.

Who did liberate Auschwitz? Not even the United States... The Red Army had that honor.

When are the real candidates going to show up?

Oh noes! Obama got confused about the war experience of a man who, from the sounds of it, didn't personally talk about it much.

Do you have any elderly relatives who have fought in wars? Family stories get passed down, but they aren't always strictly accurate. It may very well be that most of the family wasn't even sure exactly where Obama's grandfather and great uncle were at any given time in the war.

Misquoted. Depending on which speech you read or heard, it's "grandfather, uncle, or great uncle".

His grandfather also served in the same war. It's not a matter of "which speech". It's a matter of who he's actually talking about.

Technically, it's great uncle. He doesn't have an uncle.

Meh. I've got aunts and uncles that aren't even related to me by blood.

I think he's pulling it out of his ass.

I'm fairly certain that service records are a matter of public record. Look it up. Did his grandfather serve? Did his great uncle?

Well the Obama camp isn't playing the race card, or if they have it's been subtle. Hillary on the other hand screams out a new conspiracy against her daily by the evil sexists.

Not to mention she's gone down the despicable racist road....

I started out not really liking her, but now I've moved into the realm of pity. I really hope she figures a way out while she still has some dignity left intact.

I don't think I ever liked her. But of late I am rather agreed. She's in a sorry, pitiable, desparate, and delusional state.

Funny, I started out not minding her, but now I've moved into the realm of full, outright hatred.

Yet another instance of a Democrat fabricating war experience. You'd think they would have learned after seeing how well it worked for John Kerry. And since Obama has none of his own, he has to fabricate someone else's...

Unlike the current DESERTER in chief, who managed to slag off opponents in 2000 and 2004 who actually served? (Yeah, his predesessor was the dodger in chief. I'll give you that. If you give up Dan Q. as a dodger as well.)

Hillary is possibly the worst VP pick. Absolutely horrible. There's no reason why Obama should take her onto his ticket. Two or three months ago sure, after her absolute meltdown since then there's no reason to. She's burned too much credibility, and she doesn't help him as much as she hurts him. Taking her on goes against everything he's campaigned on so far.

She's starting to remind me of that Neil Young song...

I've seen the needle
and the damage done
A little part of it in everyone
But every junkie's
like a settin' sun.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/needleandthedamagedone.html


There is already an unofficial office pool taking bets on how long Obama survives and whether or not Hillary will take the nomination "by force".

I would not put it past her or her loyal organization.

You may say I'm just paranoid for believing that Vince Foster was killed, and the billing records taken to protect Hillary by her current campaign manager (they were rediscovered in Hillary's bedroom in the White House, and then "lost" before they could be examined).

If Obama goes the way of Bobby Kennedy, I'll log on here and tell you "I told you so."

I'm agreed with you on her ruthlessness and Vince Foster (I think I involked his name here earlier), but at this point, she'd likely be suspect #1 and she won't have the SS to cover her tracks...

Mistakingly naming one concentration camp over another is "Fabricated war experience?" It couldn't just have been a mistake. Finally, before you do the whole great-Uncle thing... My Uncle Tony (a proud Marine) died two weeks ago. I never bothered to put great in front of Uncle. I doubt most of us do in most situations.

Lastly, how dare you of all people still propagate this lie regarding John Kerry? He may be of a different party, but that's not reaqson enough to be a douche. Three purple hearts and the Navy Cross with a V for valor are not just handed out willy nilly. You say you are ex-military, so do your awards mean dick? Do mine get invalidated because someone decides to start a rumor? If it were others saying this I would not be nearly as pissed. But you damn well know better. Kindly cut the horseshit please.

Bingo, bingo, bingo. The John Kerry BS was especially nasty coming from a deserter running an administration full of chicken-hawks. Poppy should have turned junior over his knee and spanked him for the despicable campaigns against John McCain and John Kerry. :mad:

1. Her loyal aide emptied Vince Foster's office in defiance of law enforcement.
2. This loyal aide is currently her campaign manager.
3. Other loyal aides in this campaign have said terrible smears, and then resigned - falling on their sword for Hillary, yet trying to advance her cause without Hillary getting dirt on her.
4. I believe she said that remark because they've been discussing it.

Sort of a, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome...."

Seriously. Doesn't just about everyone refer to great aunts and uncles just as "Uncle or Aunt [first name]"?

Man, I've got an aunt (who my mother also grew up calling aunt) who isn't even related to us by blood. She was a close family friend and my mother's godmother. I have another uncle (again, who my mother also called uncle) who is actually my grandmother's cousin. Without looking it up on a chart, I honestly couldn't tell you what that makes him to me.

My family hails from opposite ends of the country, and in both of them "aunt" and "uncle" seem to be catchall terms for "someone at least a generation older who is related to me somehow or might as well be".

Again a bingo. My Grand Aunt Rosemary was Aunt Rosemary.

The whole thing was stupid. It's not like he lied about actually coming under fire like a certain someone we know, or joined the Texas Air Gaurd, and then deserted.

Oh noes! Obama got confused about the war experience of a man who, from the sounds of it, didn't personally talk about it much.

Do you have any elderly relatives who have fought in wars? Family stories get passed down, but they aren't always strictly accurate. It may very well be that most of the family wasn't even sure exactly where Obama's grandfather and great uncle were at any given time in the war.

What amuses me is that the RNC suggested this means he is not qualified to be President. Didn't you know? Being a family historian is now a requirement. You know what's not a requirement? Knowing who you're planning to continue a war with for the next five years. Because, of course, they've not mentioned at all that McCain doesn't know who our enemies are and who is working with whom. I would say that is MUCH more relevant to being President, but I guess I'm just silly.

His grandfather also served in the same war. It's not a matter of "which speech". It's a matter of who he's actually talking about.



Meh. I've got aunts and uncles that aren't even related to me by blood.



I'm fairly certain that service records are a matter of public record. Look it up. Did his grandfather serve? Did his great uncle?

It is public record and it was fact checked. One of the articles actually gives the name of the uncle that served.

And yes, his grandfather also served. I know it's confusing to some, but some people have LOTS of relatives who served in the wars of the US.

And yes, his grandfather also served. I know it's confusing to some, but some people have LOTS of relatives who served in the wars of the US.

Something which might change quite a bit, though not in Obama's case, if the US kept to the useful ones.

What amuses me is that the RNC suggested this means he is not qualified to be President. Didn't you know? Being a family historian is now a requirement. You know what's not a requirement? Knowing who you're planning to continue a war with for the next five years. Because, of course, they've not mentioned at all that McCain doesn't know who our enemies are and who is working with whom. I would say that is MUCH more relevant to being President, but I guess I'm just silly.

Yeah. It's also much more important to remember exactly where your grandfather and great uncle were in WWII than to have any idea at all what the leadership structure of Iran is. Why, after all, should the president be more informed than your "average American" about that?

Anyone who would willingly "negotiate" in good faith with Hamas would be inviting exactly that.

Wow, Kimchi, you are at your worst yet. You do realize what was required for the Holocaust to happen, right? Germany got away with it for several years because they controlled most of Europe and had free reign to bus (train, perhaps?)in a population they had already quarantined in their cities for several years before that.

On the flip side Hamas is merely an organization that represents the Palestinians and is only one faction of them at that. Meanwhile the Jews control the country.

Seriously, there is no way they could somehow flip things and start up a genocide. Even if Hamas somehow managed to start one, do you really think they'd get very far before the United States and the European Union kicked them back into the ground? Not even the European Union would balk at instant military action to stop that kind of genocide. I know I wouldn't.

From CNN:

"Pledged delegates fairly reflect the will of the voters." Ickes said, referring to delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses.

If that is true, shouldn't we be looking at the candidate with the most pledged delegates? Wasn't their argument recently that pledged delegates don't cut it, that the process is wrong, and that we need to be looking at popular vote and excluding caucus states instead?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/28/dnc.memo/index.html

From CNN:

"Pledged delegates fairly reflect the will of the voters." Ickes said, referring to delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses.

If that is true, shouldn't we be looking at the candidate with the most pledged delegates? Wasn't their argument recently that pledged delegates don't cut it, that the process is wrong, and that we need to be looking at popular vote and excluding caucus states instead?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/28/dnc.memo/index.html

God damn it, Dem, would you stop it with that logic?!
Sorry...the nonsense from Ickes and company is just driving me nuts lately.

Wow, Kimchi, you are at your worst yet. You do realize what was required for the Holocaust to happen, right? Germany got away with it for several years because they controlled most of Europe and had free reign to bus (train, perhaps?)in a population they had already quarantined in their cities for several years before that.

On the flip side Hamas is merely an organization that represents the Palestinians and is only one faction of them at that. Meanwhile the Jews control the country.

Seriously, there is no way they could somehow flip things and start up a genocide. Even if Hamas somehow managed to start one, do you really think they'd get very far before the United States and the European Union kicked them back into the ground? Not even the European Union would balk at instant military action to stop that kind of genocide. I know I wouldn't.

I don't see anyone seriously trying to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while simultaneously and repeatedly calling for the destruction of Israel, the death of the Jews, and a lot of "wiping out" talk.

Hell, with Obama as President, we're going to talk about Iran's "legitimate" gripe with Israel. Might as well talk about the 12th Imam with Ahmadinejad while we're at it, and watch the mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv while Obama waves a piece a paper saying, "Peace in our time..."

I don't see anyone seriously trying to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while simultaneously and repeatedly calling for the destruction of Israel, the death of the Jews, and a lot of "wiping out" talk.

Hell, with Obama as President, we're going to talk about Iran's "legitimate" gripe with Israel. Might as well talk about the 12th Imam with Ahmadinejad while we're at it, and watch the mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv while Obama waves a piece a paper saying, "Peace in our time..."

You know that level of unfounded paranoia is probably not healthy.

I don't see anyone seriously trying to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while simultaneously and repeatedly calling for the destruction of Israel, the death of the Jews, and a lot of "wiping out" talk.

Hell, with Obama as President, we're going to talk about Iran's "legitimate" gripe with Israel. Might as well talk about the 12th Imam with Ahmadinejad while we're at it, and watch the mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv while Obama waves a piece a paper saying, "Peace in our time..."

I will not waste my words or my moves on insane ramblings. Offer me something decent to argue against or accept that you won't have the honor of arguing with me.

You know that level of unfounded paranoia is probably not healthy.

AND HILLARY IS GOING TO MURDER OBAMA111!!!11!!:sniper::sniper::sniper:

You know, my Grandfather was part of the group liberating a concentration camp in WWII, and I don't even know which one. He had photographs of mass graves and malnourished people, though.

I can understand if Obama got the name of the camp wrong. Since grandpa's death, I would be hard pressed to find the name of the camp he was at. And once you get something like that wrong, it settles in your mind and you don't think to question it until you say it and someone says "no, that can't be right."

Also, now I get to entertain the slim possibility that my grandpa might have served with a relative of Obama, which would be pretty cool.

AND HILLARY IS GOING TO MURDER OBAMA111!!!11!!:sniper::sniper::sniper:

Oh no she'd never do it herself. She's got lackies for that! :D

God damn it, Dem, would you stop it with that logic?!
Sorry...the nonsense from Ickes and company is just driving me nuts lately.

Oh....um......sorry about that.

:gundge::sniper::gundge::sniper:

Better?

:d

Well that was a delightful derailing. :(

On another note, did anyone else know that Hillary Clinton was once a Republican? I just learned on a political quiz website.

It doesn't really matter, but it's still more substantive than a lot of things that get discussed around here. =)

On another note, did anyone else know that Hillary Clinton was once a Republican? I just learned on a political quiz website.

It doesn't really matter, but it's still more substantive than a lot of things that get discussed around here. =)

Really? I did not know that. I wonder why she was a Republican and why she changed...?

On another note, did anyone else know that Hillary Clinton was once a Republican? I just learned on a political quiz website.

It doesn't really matter, but it's still more substantive than a lot of things that get discussed around here. =)

Given her voting history, that's not surprising. Does explain the saber rattling.

On another note, did anyone else know that Hillary Clinton was once a Republican? I just learned on a political quiz website.

It doesn't really matter, but it's still more substantive than a lot of things that get discussed around here. =)

So... Full circle, it seems?

Edit: W00t, 1337 post is |\/|1|\|3!

:p

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_swing_voters;_ylt=Ah1TTCF88cSKTLEpSqhhNPSs0NUE

This little study includes an extremely large sampling size. For this reason their MOE is lower, which is preferred. It's not just a matter of how a divided party is doing right at the moment. The long view is to see what a united Democratic party behind Barack Obama can do against John McCain. Those stats look better as each day passes. With time and money Barack can drive these numbers and allow them to continue to grow.
From the same article that you cited, surely this must be a concern:

Obama trails Clinton by 24 points among voters age 65 and older. McCain is well ahead of Obama in the Gallup and Quinnipiac polls, but they're about even in the CBS/Times poll. The elderly leaned by small margins toward Bush in 2004, Gore in 2000 and President Clinton in 1996.

For Republicans who have long dominated among men and whites, the place you start looking to capture votes from Democrats is those who have stayed with Hillary Clinton and culturally conservative Democrats, like working-class white voters, said GOP pollster Neil Newhouse.

In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll last month, about a quarter of Clinton supporters and one in six white Democrats who have not finished college said they would back McCain should Obama be the Democratic nominee, with roughly a quarter of each undecided.
And also from the same article, the following could be cause for concern:

Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has strongly preferred Clinton — whites without college degrees — he's doing no worse than the past two Democratic presidential candidates.
And of course, the last 2 Democratic presidential candidates lost.

From the same article that you cited, surely this must be a concern:


And also from the same article, the following could be cause for concern:


And of course, the last 2 Democratic presidential candidates lost.

Maybe the idiot you support so blindly should drop out then and tell her sycophants to support Obama over another four years of Shrubya.

Here's the big thing about this electoral vote site. It has polls that are outdated and pretty much Irrelevant. For instance, the last poll they have for NJ on the Clinton chart is from April 28th. Anyone else see that as being too far in the past and not applicable to the race today? OOOH, I DO!
Polls from 1 month ago are irrelevant, even though that was the last poll conducted?

What should the cutoff time frame be for polls to be relevant?

*snip*

The story he told of his grandfather could have been the story of mine, honestly.

Like so many others, he was called the day after Pearl Harbor. He left on New Year's Day. My grandparents were newly married. My grandmother joined him at a camp in the south (I don't remember what state) around the middle of '42. She got pregnant during that time.

My grandfather shipped out to Europe. Shortly after my mother was born my grandmother received a notice that my grandfather was missing. And just after that, that he was dead.

I'm not sure how long he had been dead when she received another notice that he'd been found. He was in a hospital in France and he was unconscious for some time and when he woke initially had amnesia. They didn't know who he was, but he certainly should have never been reported dead.

From what I understand, he fully recovered and he participated in campaigns all over Europe. He returned home when my mother was nearly 3.

People talk all the time about what soldiers went through. I know what it's like to offer your life to your country. I know what it's like to reach a point when you're sure you're about to give it. I know what it's like to fear for my fellow Marine and to mourn Marines who didn't make it.

I can imagine what it was like to walk into concentration camps and witness first-hand that particular category of evil. I can imagine what a real battle of the magnitude my grandfather experienced.

I heard first-hand what the families of those soldiers went through. I CAN'T imagine the strength it must have taken for my grandmother to carry on with a baby daughter while mourning her husband. I CAN'T imagine the emotional turmoil of finding out he was alive after she'd already mourned him. I CAN'T imagine the pain of watching your three-year-old meet her father for the first time.

I know what it was like to serve my country. I have not the first clue what it's like to let your loved one leave to do the same. Even when my brother left for Iraq I did I really realize what it was like back then, or what it's like now.

It is for this reason that John McCain should be ashamed of his positions on torture and the GI Bill.

Maybe the idiot you support so blindly should drop out then and tell her sycophants to support Obama over another four years of Shrubya.
Hey....there is a winning suggestion. :rolleyes:

Am I the only one throughly disgusted with the idea of Hillary Clinton being made a Supreme Court justice in exchange for her dropping out of the race? I've seen this idea tossed around a bit.

Am I the only one throughly disgusted with the idea of Hillary Clinton being made a Supreme Court justice in exchange for her dropping out of the race? I've seen this idea tossed around a bit.

No. I don't think appointments like that should be bartered in that way.

Am I the only one throughly disgusted with the idea of Hillary Clinton being made a Supreme Court justice in exchange for her dropping out of the race? I've seen this idea tossed around a bit.

Nope, you're not the only one.

No. I don't think appointments like that should be bartered in that way.

I agree. That, and she would be the most unqualified candidate since... probably Hugo Black.

IMO, both Democratic candidates have the background to potentially stand as judges.

Obama has an interest in constitutional law that pre-dates his days in public office, IIRC.

Whether either could be plausibly appointed in the near future or not is not entirely clear. I have doubts myself.

Perhaps if Obama makes an exceptionally good president, viewed well through the end of two terms in office, one of his successor(s) may see fit to provide him with something more significant to do with the last few decades of his life than lecturing on constitutional law at the University of Chicago and writing memoirs.
And of course, the last 2 Democratic presidential candidates lost.
Both were also in easy striking range of victory - in Gore's case, famously, the obstacle being Florida's failure to master the art of counting ballots. Final recount, completed a year later, indicated a very narrow Gore lead in Florida for any consistent method of counting the whole state. Of course, had he run a slightly more effective campaign, that probably wouldn't have mattered.

In Kerry's case, a stronger showing in Ohio, or in a handful of western states, would have done the job. The infamous Swift Boat slanders alone probably accounted for more difference than that; had he run his campaign differently enough, he could have garnered enough electoral votes to win.

No sane, informed, pro-choice issue voter is going to pick McCain over Obama.

I agree. That, and she would be the most unqualified candidate since... probably Hugo Black.
I disagree with your implicit contention that Hugo Black was the least qualified justice to take the bench in the last 71 years, let alone the least qualified candidate for justiceship the Senate has ayed or nayed.

I disagree with your implicit contention that Hugo Black was the least qualified justice to take the bench in the last 71 years, let alone the least qualified candidate for justiceship the Senate has ayed or nayed.

Hugo Black was much like Harriet Meiers and William Douglas. They were all political appointees with little bench experience, say nothing of Constitutional Law. Say what you want about the present crop of Justices (because I think that's what you're getting at), but they were all well qualified (with the possible exception of Thomas).

IMO, both Democratic candidates have the background to potentially stand as judges.

Obama has an interest in constitutional law that pre-dates his days in public office, IIRC.

Whether either could be plausibly appointed in the near future or not is not entirely clear. I have doubts myself.

Perhaps if Obama makes an exceptionally good president, viewed well through the end of two terms in office, one of his successor(s) may see fit to provide him with something more significant to do with the last few decades of his life than lecturing on constitutional law at the University of Chicago and writing memoirs.

Both were also in easy striking range of victory - in Gore's case, famously, the obstacle being Florida's failure to master the art of counting ballots. Final recount, completed a year later, indicated a very narrow Gore lead in Florida for any consistent method of counting the whole state. Of course, had he run a slightly more effective campaign, that probably wouldn't have mattered.

In Kerry's case, a stronger showing in Ohio, or in a handful of western states, would have done the job. The infamous Swift Boat slanders alone probably accounted for more difference than that; had he run his campaign differently enough, he could have garnered enough electoral votes to win.

No sane, informed, pro-choice issue voter is going to pick McCain over Obama.

A significant portion of the US electorate is batshit insane.

The story he told of his grandfather could have been the story of mine, honestly.

Like so many others, he was called the day after Pearl Harbor. He left on New Year's Day. My grandparents were newly married. My grandmother joined him at a camp in the south (I don't remember what state) around the middle of '42. She got pregnant during that time.

My grandfather shipped out to Europe. Shortly after my mother was born my grandmother received a notice that my grandfather was missing. And just after that, that he was dead.

I'm not sure how long he had been dead when she received another notice that he'd been found. He was in a hospital in France and he was unconscious for some time and when he woke initially had amnesia. They didn't know who he was, but he certainly should have never been reported dead.

From what I understand, he fully recovered and he participated in campaigns all over Europe. He returned home when my mother was nearly 3.

People talk all the time about what soldiers went through. I know what it's like to offer your life to your country. I know what it's like to reach a point when you're sure you're about to give it. I know what it's like to fear for my fellow Marine and to mourn Marines who didn't make it.

I can imagine what it was like to walk into concentration camps and witness first-hand that particular category of evil. I can imagine what a real battle of the magnitude my grandfather experienced.

I heard first-hand what the families of those soldiers went through. I CAN'T imagine the strength it must have taken for my grandmother to carry on with a baby daughter while mourning her husband. I CAN'T imagine the emotional turmoil of finding out he was alive after she'd already mourned him. I CAN'T imagine the pain of watching your three-year-old meet her father for the first time.

I know what it was like to serve my country. I have not the first clue what it's like to let your loved one leave to do the same. Even when my brother left for Iraq I did I really realize what it was like back then, or what it's like now.

It is for this reason that John McCain should be ashamed of his positions on torture and the GI Bill.

Oh, just so I'm not disqualified from being President, I will not stand by the veracity of this story. Unfortunately, I don't vet every person and every story of my life. I wouldn't want a mistake on some trivial detail to cost hundreds of thousands of lives on five unnecessary years of war.

/stupid disclaimer that only a loon would require of a Presidential candidate

Polls from 1 month ago are irrelevant, even though that was the last poll conducted?

What should the cutoff time frame be for polls to be relevant?

Mississippi March 6th. Florida mar 6th. Ahh, Georgia put a new poll up now. Mar 20th. Woohoo. Ahh, South Carolina is Mar. 6th. How are these relevant? I'll continue...It's also all based on Survey USA. Oooh, they put their survey into a graph chart. That's why it's wrong CH. It's intellectually dishonest to say the least. I did not call you a liar there, just said you were not accurately representing the date. As for your picking two small parts out of that whole article is.... just funny.

Hugo Black was much like Harriet Meiers and William Douglas. They were all political appointees with little bench experience, say nothing of Constitutional Law. Say what you want about the present crop of Justices (because I think that's what you're getting at), but they were all well qualified (with the possible exception of Thomas).
I bring to your attention a subsequently seated justice who Segal et al deem to have been less qualified than the senator who previously worked as a lawyer and had one brief stint as a police court judge - I present Tom C. Clark (bioblurb courtesy of Wikipedia):
Clark was born in Dallas, Texas, to Virginia Maxey Falls and William Henry Clark.[1] A graduate of Dallas High,[2] he served as a Texas National Guard infantryman in 1918; afterward he studied law, receiving his law degree from the University of Texas School of Law in 1922 and setting up practice in his home town of Dallas from 1922 to 1937. He resigned from private practice for a period to serve as civil district attorney for the city from 1927 to 1932.

Clark, a Democrat, joined the Justice Department in 1937 and served as civilian coordinator for the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans during the opening months of World War II. Later, he headed the antitrust and criminal divisions at Justice.
The low score on Segal's list belongs to unsuccessful Nixon nominee G. Harrold Carswell, who actually had more bench experience:
Carswell completed his legal education at the Walter F. George School of Law of Mercer University in 1948. Griffin B. Bell, 72nd Attorney General of the United States, was a classmate at Mercer.

Carswell served as a private attorney in Tallahassee, Florida, from 1948 to 1953 and as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida from 1953 to 1958. In 1958, he was nominated and confirmed as a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. In 1969, he was nominated and confirmed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Carswell was described by his opponents as mediocre and over half of his challenged decisions as a district court judge were subsequently overturned. His occasional attempts at running for elective office were failures, and Carswell soon retired to private practice as an attorney.

I would suggest that Hillary Clinton, who was at least a highly successful lawyer, did postgraduate research in law, served on various committees as a high-profile female lawyer with connections, and has served a term as senator, is also better qualified to serve on the court than both of the above, one of whom was actually seated.

Although you did not, IIRC, complain about Obama, I will for completeness note that Senator Obama spent a decade lecturing on constitutional law at a very picky university, and moonlighting as an attorney in addition to his terms as a senator and previously as a state senator, and I think it is easy to conclude that he, too, would not be the least qualified nominee since Hugo Black.

Indeed - as your prelude suggests - it is easy to suggest that one or both of them is better qualified by prior experience than Clarence Thomas, who in addition to being a lawyer, was an assistant state attorney general for three years before spending a year on the bench in district court of appeals.

It should also be noted that more complete polling including Bob Barr has shown some states are much more in play than previously thought, including GA. Of course, the site doesn't actually account for that, and by doing two-person polling favors the states that are traditionally swing.

Thomas was seen to be one of the least qualified candidates seated after the Roosevelt Era. The New York Times published a chart comparing how potential Justices are 1. Seen Politically and 2. Seen Competently. Unfortunately, I can't seem at the moment to locate an internet source. My Constitutional History professor displayed it as an overhead. I shall continue my internet search, but know that I am not pulling my criticism of Justices Thomas, Black, and Douglas from my own mind.

On another note, did anyone else know that Hillary Clinton was once a Republican? I just learned on a political quiz website.

Sure did. She was a "Goldwater Girl" no less.

It doesn't really matter, but it's still more substantive than a lot of things that get discussed around here. =)

Really? I did not know that. I wonder why she was a Republican and why she changed...?

I addressed that above:

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. :(

Am I the only one throughly disgusted with the idea of Hillary Clinton being made a Supreme Court justice in exchange for her dropping out of the race? I've seen this idea tossed around a bit.

Haven't come across that suggestion yet. Horrible, horrible idea. The Clintons need to be far, far away from DC for a long, long time.

Mississippi March 6th. Florida mar 6th. Ahh, Georgia put a new poll up now. Mar 20th. Woohoo. Ahh, South Carolina is Mar. 6th. How are these relevant? I'll continue...It's also all based on Survey USA. Oooh, they put their survey into a graph chart. That's why it's wrong CH. It's intellectually dishonest to say the least. I did not call you a liar there, just said you were not accurately representing the date. As for your picking two small parts out of that whole article is.... just funny.
Try debating without throwing around weighty words. I was not trying to misrepresent anything. I was taking the data as presented and as supported by the polling info.

Now, I would like your feedback on the two questions I asked you:

Polls from 1 month ago are irrelevant, even though that was the last poll conducted?

What should the cutoff time frame be for polls to be relevant?

Now, I would like your feedback on the two questions I asked you:

Polls from 1 month ago are irrelevant, even though that was the last poll conducted?
One month before Texas and Ohio had Clinton up by as much as 18%, but by the time the votes were cast they were considerably closer than that. Two weeks before Pennsylvania the polls were similar, and she barely reached double digits (only by rounding up). A month before Super Tuesday Clinton was up by as much as 20%.

Those may be the last time the water was tested but that doesn't mean the water has stayed the same. Heck, right now some of those might be even worse than they are now, or better. Polls taken from a month ago would reflect 'new' stories like Wright or 'bitter' or even 'sniper fire.' As time as progressed those haven't mattered as much.

All a month old poll tells you is how they were doing a month ago, and all a current poll tells you is how they are doing now. November is still 5 months away. Thats forever in campaign terms.

What should the cutoff time frame be for polls to be relevant?
Honestly anything over a week would be subject to 'old news' and not reflect any 'new news.' Again, it's foolish to rely too heavily on polls as a predictor, they just indicate progress and possibility. Actual wins in polls are not quite as important as the number of contests that are in play, because those numbers are either within the margin of error or they are close enough that movement will tip the scale.

SurveyUSA is the flimsiest metric yet, and I'm including the Onion's satirical 'first one to that door wins' metric.

One month before Texas and Ohio had Clinton up by as much as 18%, but by the time the votes were cast they were considerably closer than that. Two weeks before Pennsylvania the polls were similar, and she barely reached double digits (only by rounding up). A month before Super Tuesday Clinton was up by as much as 20%.

Those may be the last time the water was tested but that doesn't mean the water has stayed the same. Heck, right now some of those might be even worse than they are now, or better. Polls taken from a month ago would reflect 'new' stories like Wright or 'bitter' or even 'sniper fire.' As time as progressed those haven't mattered as much.

All a month old poll tells you is how they were doing a month ago, and all a current poll tells you is how they are doing now. November is still 5 months away. Thats forever in campaign terms.

Honestly anything over a week would be subject to 'old news' and not reflect any 'new news.' Again, it's foolish to rely too heavily on polls as a predictor, they just indicate progress and possibility. Actual wins in polls are not quite as important as the number of contests that are in play, because those numbers are either within the margin of error or they are close enough that movement will tip the scale.

SurveyUSA is the flimsiest metric yet, and I'm including the Onion's satirical 'first one to that door wins' metric.

Not to mention, the entire thing isn't a real metric. It's one thing to look at polls from when they were both on equal standing. However, they aren't. The Republicans have no reason to attack her, and, in fact, are trying to promote her. Obama is looking past her. Suggesting that they are both standing on equal footing is just not rational.

I'm curious. How many articles can anyone find about Republicans attacking Hillary? I'd love to see them.

I addressed that above:





Yeah, no. Your insulting posts aren't helping, Dai. I understand where you're coming from on them, but they're not really necessary.

Polls from 1 month ago are irrelevant, even though that was the last poll conducted?

It really depends on the circumstances. In this case they're most definitely irrelevant, but that's because the dynamic between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama tends to change rather radically over time, usually in Senator Obama's favor. As such, they don't reflect current views.

And considering how often views change even in the dullest of races, current polling is important.


What should the cutoff time frame be for polls to be relevant?
Personally, I'd say no more than a week, though preferably three days or closer.

Thomas was seen to be one of the least qualified candidates seated after the Roosevelt Era. The New York Times published a chart comparing how potential Justices are 1. Seen Politically and 2. Seen Competently. Unfortunately, I can't seem at the moment to locate an internet source. My Constitutional History professor displayed it as an overhead. I shall continue my internet search, but know that I am not pulling my criticism of Justices Thomas, Black, and Douglas from my own mind.
It's probably from the same source I mentioned briefly - Segal et al (http://ws.cc.stonybrook.edu/polsci/jsegal/qualtable.pdf) (chart look familiar?) - or another source based off of Segal's work. Which is based on expressed concerns before appointment, basically - how they were viewed going into the nomination process.

Hugo Black certainly is one of the historic justices of the court; while he didn't have much bench experience going into it, it's hard to dispute that he turned out to be a very sharp thinker, and quite good at his job. Scalia I would decry as overly partisan at the least (and fairly often wrong in close decisions, IMO), but nobody was questioning his prior experience with constitutional law.

I would rather have another Hugo Black than a disputed and clearly partisan Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.

Yeah, no. Your insulting posts aren't helping, Dai. I understand where you're coming from on them, but they're not really necessary.

I don't see the insult. Is there another post you're referencing?

I don't see the insult. Is there another post you're referencing?

Yes. In his post he quoted himself where he said Hillary had lost her soul or something along those lines. I'd call that insulting regardless of one's personal beliefs.

Quite interesting...rather than link, I paste it all.

Clinton's history lesson
US elections 2008: A bitter fight over a Florida election can sink the Democrats - just ask Janet Reno

May 28, 2008 9:30 PM |
Hillary Clinton traveled to Florida last week with a clear goal: to stoke resentment about the state's outlaw status in the Democratic campaign and draw a parallel between her losing battle in the Democratic primary of 2008 and the misery visited on Florida Democrats in the general election of 2000.

"We still have nightmares about 2000 and what happened in that election," she told a crowd at a retirement community. "It was wrong." The message from Clinton, who had previously supported the move to penalise Florida and Michigan in order preserve the preeminence of early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire, wasn't subtle: another election was being stolen in the Sunshine State.

In fact, Florida Democrats have seen something eerily similar to this year's Clinton-Obama slog. But it took place two years after Bush v Gore become such a touchstone for Democratic outrage.

The 2002 Florida Democratic gubernatorial primary pitted an experienced woman with a strong and passionate base of support and a national reputation against an audacious, younger upstart making his first run for office. Early polls suggested the race between former US attorney-general Janet Reno and Tampa lawyer Bill McBride was a lopsided joke. Reno led by 50 percentage points or more.

For a while, Reno's renown masked her campaign's deep flaws. Meantime, over the course of a long campaign, McBride raised significantly more money than Reno and followed a smart strategy devised by pollster Geoff Garin, who, as it happens, now advises Hillary Clinton. (Along with my partner at the time, David Doak, I made McBride's television ads.)

On Election night, McBride appeared to have won a huge upset, but the results were so close that he went to bed without declaring victory. He didn't want to offend Reno or her voters (or the truth). Reno, suffering political shock, refused for more than a week to concede. Instead, she summoned the ghosts of 2000, asking for a review of votes in her stronghold of Miami-Dade.

"The right to vote is one of the most precious possessions we have," Reno said at a news conference. "I think the first thing we must do is get the votes counted."

Heard anything like that lately?

Just as Clinton's nomination was inevitable, so, too, was Reno's. The only thing that went awry was the actual voting. As Reno dug in her heels, questioning the validity of the result, she undermined McBride among an electorate that didn't know him well to begin with. Meantime, she steered her voters toward an obvious conclusion: someone had stolen the election. Since the victor's crown was sitting atop McBride's head, her angry supporters didn't have much trouble identifying the usurper.

With Reno refusing to step aside, McBride's fundraising ground to a halt. Instead of coming out of the primary a giant slayer, riding momentum and money into the general election, his campaign was mired in doubt. McBride's eventual margin of victory was 4,800 votes. But he emerged badly damaged. Even after Reno's concession, and a half-hearted feint toward party unity, much of McBride's political energy was directed to shoring up the fragmented Democratic base, leaving him incapable of mounting an effective challenge to the incumbent Republican governor, Jeb Bush. With just two months between the primary and general elections, he was never able to rally Reno's skeptical base to his cause. Governor Bush was reelected in a landslide.

In her own campaign to defy the harsh reality of "the math," Hillary Clinton continues to careen between conciliation and party unity on one side, and thinly veiled threats, like her comments in Florida, to blow up the Democratic Party on the other. Her political agenda continues to be the subject of intense speculation. Some say she is simply in denial. Others believe she is fighting a noble crusade in behalf of women everywhere. There is also reason to suspect she is trying to force her way onto the Democratic ticket or, in the darker version, to sabotage Obama so she can supplant him as the nominee in 2012 (if not sooner).

Of course, it's possible that all the political and psychological threads are so densely tangled that even Clinton herself can't read her own mind. But I wonder if Janet Reno can.

Yes. In his post he quoted himself where he said Hillary had lost her soul or something along those lines. I'd call that insulting regardless of one's personal beliefs.

Lost your soul could certainly be an attempt suggest someone is evil or something similar, but generally I just hear it used to indicate they've lost the thing you liked about them. That of course is insulting, but I don't see how you can say you don't like a candidate's behavior without being insulting at that level.

If he was trying to say she's actually soulless, then I apologize, but I'm certainly not going to assume that. In a political discussion, if a mild expression of disgust with something at the level of the example he gave, it should suprising, but only for the level of restraint.

EDIT: Isn't "She panders to racists" insulting to anyone who recognizes what a sorry tactic that is? Would you be insulted if I suggested you pandered to racists? And if I needed to say that, how would I say that in a way that wasn't insulting and wasn't just incredibly patronizing?

Yes. In his post he quoted himself where he said Hillary had lost her soul or something along those lines. I'd call that insulting regardless of one's personal beliefs.

Even if that belief is that she's lost her soul?

The commentary I posted was from the Washington Post, and ended by saying she was in danger of loosing her soul. I pointed out that she's gone from leaving the GOP because of percieved racism to running a racist campaign, which counts as having lost one's soul (or at least one's moral reference points) in my books.

Even if that belief is that she's lost her soul?

To point out that she's gone from leaving the GOP because of percieved racism to running a racist campaign counts as having lost one's soul in my books.

It's interesting that her campaign is now claiming that no one said anything about sexism but jumped all over racism. I wonder what would have happened if Obama would have passed around pictures of her cooking and cleaning in an attempt to discredit her.

Lost your soul could certainly be an attempt suggest someone is evil or something similar, but generally I just hear it used to indicate they've lost the thing you liked about them. That of course is insulting, but I don't see how you can say you don't like a candidate's behavior without being insulting at that level.

If he was trying to say she's actually soulless, then I apologize, but I'm certainly not going to assume that. In a political discussion, if a mild expression of disgust with something at the level of the example he gave, it should suprising, but only for the level of restraint.

EDIT: Isn't "She panders to racists" insulting to anyone who recognizes what a sorry tactic that is? Would you be insulted if I suggested you pandered to racists? And if I needed to say that, how would I say that in a way that wasn't insulting and wasn't just incredibly patronizing?

Even if that belief is that she's lost her soul?

The commentary I posted was from the Washington Post, and ended by saying she was in danger of loosing her soul. I pointed out that she's gone from leaving the GOP because of percieved racism to running a racist campaign, which counts as having lost one's soul (or at least one's moral reference points) in my books.
You both make excellent points. Forgive me my over-hastiness in making false assumptions.

You both make excellent points. Forgive me my over-hastiness in making false assumptions.

I'm interested in your views on the subject, actually. Some people feel like these kinds of things aren't that big of a deal. I don't agree, but some people do. Some people it's all just a game with a prize at the end. I'd say that looking at past elections, it's hard to deny that.

I'm just curious what you think about the "game" of politics. Is it really personal? Is she a racist? Does she support racism? Is she just trying to win? Did she not know it was going on? Something else?

I'm curious.

I found this to be a more rational approach to the comments. I honestly just believe it was a silly thing to say. This article puts it in context of the campaign and history.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/hillary_agonistes_1.html

Poor taste by the Clintons is matched by poor history. Kennedy's campaign against Hubert Humphrey 40 years ago is not comparable to the Clinton-Obama marathon. When he was killed, Kennedy had been a candidate for only two-and-one-half months and Humphrey for two months. Contrary to the impression given by Sen. Clinton, Kennedy was not the presumptive nominee removed by an assassin. Humphrey enjoyed a decisive lead in delegates that Kennedy surely would have been unable to erase. As for 1992, Bill Clinton clinched the nomination in April -- not June, as his wife claims.

Lost your soul could certainly be an attempt suggest someone is evil or something similar, but generally I just hear it used to indicate they've lost the thing you liked about them. That of course is insulting, but I don't see how you can say you don't like a candidate's behavior without being insulting at that level.

If he was trying to say she's actually soulless, then I apologize, but I'm certainly not going to assume that. In a political discussion, if a mild expression of disgust with something at the level of the example he gave, it should suprising, but only for the level of restraint.

Just to make things real clear for everyone, I was referring to her moral and ethical compass. She claims to have left the GOP over racism at the '72 Miami convention. Now she has conducted a racist campaign (I've lost count of all the incidents).

EDIT: Isn't "She panders to racists" insulting to anyone who recognizes what a sorry tactic that is? Would you be insulted if I suggested you pandered to racists? And if I needed to say that, how would I say that in a way that wasn't insulting and wasn't just incredibly patronizing?

If you were to seriously point out that something I said or did were racist, rather than insulted, my first reaction would be look at the words or actions. If I were to condone someone's statement that I was better than another person because that person was black, saying I was racist wouldn't be an insult. It'd be the truth. An ugly truth, but the truth. The same goes all the rest of the racism that has come out of her campaign.

It's interesting that her campaign is now claiming that no one said anything about sexism but jumped all over racism. I wonder what would have happened if Obama would have passed around pictures of her cooking and cleaning in an attempt to discredit her.

Or doctered her picture in a campaign add to make her look more girlish (or more butch?), invoked the image of her being assassinated and then not apologise for it, or claim that because he's black he's the better candidate multiple times and in different ways?

Here are the germain points from what I was addressing.

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?
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.
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

Hear ye, hear ye...

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/28/expertinent-the-southwest-passage.aspx

McCain is so screwed... :D

Hear ye, hear ye...

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/28/expertinent-the-southwest-passage.aspx

McCain is so screwed... :D
I do believe that is very old data (03-06-08). We hashed through this a couple of months ago.

Posted Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:33 AM

Well...

Well...

I think the McCain/Obama thing will be closer than you think. And if by some chance McCain wins the electoral vote, Democrats will be weeping and moaning.

It's one thing to lose an election if you believe it's likely to happen. You can shrug it off and try to rebuild for the next time.

But if you keep reading polls and articles that say, "We're going to win!" and then you don't, you feel obligated to think of conspiracies and wear a tinfoil hat.

I think the McCain/Obama thing will be closer than you think. And if by some chance McCain wins the electoral vote, Democrats will be weeping and moaning.

It's one thing to lose an election if you believe it's likely to happen. You can shrug it off and try to rebuild for the next time.

But if you keep reading polls and articles that say, "We're going to win!" and then you don't, you feel obligated to think of conspiracies and wear a tinfoil hat.

I think he'd have to try awfully hard to lose. McCain is basically four more years and everyone knows it.

I think he'd have to try awfully hard to lose. McCain is basically four more years and everyone knows it.

I remember polls, newspundits, and Democrats saying that Kerry was the winner all the way up to the election.

Bush would be four more years, and everyone knows it.

There's no underestimating the vagaries of US public opinion, and there's a lot of time between now and the election. I'm not saying McCain will definitely win, but the chance exists, and if it does happen, all those people who were convinced that Obama was going to merely walk to DC and sit down in the White House will be very, very upset.

I'm interested in your views on the subject, actually. Some people feel like these kinds of things aren't that big of a deal. I don't agree, but some people do. Some people it's all just a game with a prize at the end. I'd say that looking at past elections, it's hard to deny that.

I'm just curious what you think about the "game" of politics. Is it really personal? Is she a racist? Does she support racism? Is she just trying to win? Did she not know it was going on? Something else?

I'm curious.

I suspect there's definitely a personal element involved. Look at it from her point of view: the nomination was locked up, she was about to become even more successful than she already has, and she's overall proved herself to be a strong woman. Perhaps that's something she's always felt deficient about, and that's why I think she's taking the loss of the nomination so poorly. She really feels like something she deserved is being stolen from her, and I don't think she'll come to grips with that until someone close to her tells her its over.

Does she support racism, though? I doubt it. I think she'll use it if she can, as a tool, but she most likely doesn't support it herself. She's just playing the game to manipulate things to the way she wants it.

I remember polls, newspundits, and Democrats saying that Kerry was the winner all the way up to the election.

Bush would be four more years, and everyone knows it.

There's no underestimating the vagaries of US public opinion, and there's a lot of time between now and the election. I'm not saying McCain will definitely win, but the chance exists, and if it does happen, all those people who were convinced that Obama was going to merely walk to DC and sit down in the White House will be very, very upset.

This is true, the US electorate is about 25% stupid and 25% batshit insane.

I remember polls, newspundits, and Democrats saying that Kerry was the winner all the way up to the election.

Bush would be four more years, and everyone knows it.

There's no underestimating the vagaries of US public opinion, and there's a lot of time between now and the election. I'm not saying McCain will definitely win, but the chance exists, and if it does happen, all those people who were convinced that Obama was going to merely walk to DC and sit down in the White House will be very, very upset.

As much as I think you're overstating things, for once you've got a point, DK. We can't act like it's inevitable again. That's one of the things that's bound to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

We have to work hard to get Senator Obama elected throughout the entire campaign, not just sit on our fannies here at NSG and crow about Senator McCain's defeat.

This is true, the US electorate is about 25% stupid and 25% batshit insane.

It's not a case of stupidity so much as careful manipulation by politicians. People aren't stupid as a whole; they just don't THINK as much as they need to.

If everyone used their critical thinking skills all the time, I guarantee you the population would instantly look a lot smarter. It's really something we need to start teaching in schools, I think.

This is true, the US electorate is about 25% stupid and 25% batshit insane.

I find it odd that either party will front itself as "we're smarter than that other party".

So the Republican party got us into a war, and the Democrats were stupid enough to go along with it for a long time (until they needed election fodder).

Then when it looks like all the Democrats have to do is nominate someone and win, they waste time and money whacking each other over the head on whether or not it's the woman's turn or the African-American's turn.

There is an undercurrent of racism in the US as far as voting for a black man goes, and Hillary has danced around pointing it out but the DNC prefers to ignore it. Well, there seem to be plenty of registered Democrats who are as racist as the Democrats of the early 1960s - and they'll gladly vote Republican.

The other thing that bothers me is polling - I think it's been proven for eight years in a row that it's worthless for predicting who the President will be. I don't think they have a good sampling technique for any poll.

It's not a case of stupidity so much as careful manipulation by politicians. People aren't stupid as a whole; they just don't THINK as much as they need to.

If everyone used their critical thinking skills all the time, I guarantee you the population would instantly look a lot smarter. It's really something we need to start teaching in schools, I think.

No, no, compulsory education through high school is government mandated mind control. You're supposed to memorize things, not think about them.

Oh, and we'll never cover topics like the Bonus Army in history class...

Then when it looks like all the Democrats have to do is nominate someone and win, they waste time and money whacking each other over the head on whether or not it's the woman's turn or the African-American's turn.


It's totally the African-American's turn. We got the vote, like, 50 years earlier. :confused:

We have to work hard to get Senator Obama elected throughout the entire campaign, not just sit on our fannies here at NSG and crow about Senator McCain's defeat.

Living in Brazil, not much else I can do.

Living in Brazil, not much else I can do.
Well, yeah, I was talking to those of us who live in the U.S.

Living in Brazil, not much else I can do.

Send lawyers, guns, and money...

Send lawyers, guns, and money...

Nope. But I CAN send you a pair of old, defective slippers. Want them?

Nope. But I CAN send you a pair of old, defective slippers. Want them?

Send them to McCain - he'll take anything at this point, given his fundraising prowess, or lack thereof.

Send them to McCain - he'll take anything at this point, given his fundraising prowess, or lack thereof.

The only things I send to McCain are bad wishes.

Send them to McCain - he'll take anything at this point, given his fundraising prowess, or lack thereof.

You might want to worry then.

Apparently, this battle between Obama and Hillary has seriously crimped the DNC's ability to raise money, and you're only allowed to give so much from any one donor.

Obama is behind McCain on fundraising, and the DNC doesn't even have enough money to pay for the Denver convention at this point - the RNC is ahead of the DNC in fundraising.

You might want to worry then.

Apparently, this battle between Obama and Hillary has seriously crimped the DNC's ability to raise money, and you're only allowed to give so much from any one donor.

Obama is behind McCain on fundraising, and the DNC doesn't even have enough money to pay for the Denver convention at this point - the RNC is ahead of the DNC in fundraising.

Source?

You might want to worry then.

Apparently, this battle between Obama and Hillary has seriously crimped the DNC's ability to raise money, and you're only allowed to give so much from any one donor.

Obama is behind McCain on fundraising, and the DNC doesn't even have enough money to pay for the Denver convention at this point - the RNC is ahead of the DNC in fundraising.

I think you missed the whole point behind Obama's fundraising strategy. The idea isn't to take huge amounts from a certain number of donors; the idea is to take a small amount from EVERYONE.

That, and I would like you to source your information. Preferably from a credible source and not something like the Drudge Report.

You might want to worry then.

Apparently, this battle between Obama and Hillary has seriously crimped the DNC's ability to raise money, and you're only allowed to give so much from any one donor.

Obama is behind McCain on fundraising, and the DNC doesn't even have enough money to pay for the Denver convention at this point - the RNC is ahead of the DNC in fundraising.

Obama raised $31 million last month. McCain raised $16 million. While the RNC is raising more money than the DNC McCain will have to rely on the RNC to fund his campaign. Obama is pulling in enough money by himself to forgo public funding completely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/gop-fundraising-more-comp_n_103266.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19donate.html

Try debating without throwing around weighty words. I was not trying to misrepresent anything. I was taking the data as presented and as supported by the polling info.

Now, I would like your feedback on the two questions I asked you:

Polls from 1 month ago are irrelevant, even though that was the last poll conducted?

What should the cutoff time frame be for polls to be relevant?

You are misrepresenting the data to suit your electability argument. How can polls from 1, 1, 1, 1 polling agency even be a valid indicator of a race? Couple that with the fact that some of them were done on March 6th. It's almost the first of June. That's 3 months! That's intellectual dishonesty as I do not consider you stupid. You can clearly read this info as well. Relevant polling: about two weeks unless you are showing a trend. Finally, there are newer polls, just not for SurveyUSA, which is what this site uses. Are you meaning to tell me that states and polling organizations haven't done a poll since March? What have they been getting paid to do then besides sit with their thumb up their #sses? This is why I throw "weighty words" around. When something is pure and utter bullshit, and my opponent should know this to be the case, I will not just sit there and smile. I'll tell you why your (and Shal's) entire premise behind your argument is dead wrong. Your premise is not only dead, but dead for so long that rigamortis has set and gone.

I do believe that is very old data (03-06-08). We hashed through this a couple of months ago.

Ah, so this information from 3-6-08 is not valid, but the same date in a survey usa poll on electoral-vote.com is useful. Tell me more.

Does she support racism, though? I doubt it. I think she'll use it if she can, as a tool, but she most likely doesn't support it herself. She's just playing the game to manipulate things to the way she wants it.

To me, the next question would be, "Is this any better than being racist herself?"

I might actually prefer an actual racist to someone who crassly uses racism as a tool.

Ah, so this information from 3-6-08 is not valid, but the same date in a survey usa poll on electoral-vote.com is useful. Tell me more.

I believe the proper term for that is cherrypicking.

I believe the proper term for that is cherrypicking.

Cherrypicking is still intellectual dishonesty. GWB and Dick Cheney cherrypicked info to lead us to war...I consider that damn well intellectually dishonest as well. Cherrypicking information when you can clearly see it to be invalid is more than just that.

Ah, so this information from 3-6-08 is not valid, but the same date in a survey usa poll on electoral-vote.com is useful. Tell me more.

Ah, so the data from Drudge (who seems to now have the hots for Obama) is not valid, only the data from Democratic Underground...

the forum that got it wrong about Kerry...

tell me more...

Ah, so the data from Drudge (who seems to now have the hots for Obama) is not valid, only the data from Democratic Underground...

the forum that got it wrong about Kerry...

tell me more...

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me where I used that data as part of my argument? I'd also like to know where I dogpiled on another's use of this information. Explain to me how this information is relevant to what I said to CH. I don't care about drudge or Dem underground. They both have their uses, and most of the time you can ignore them. factcheck.org is a different story. I like that one.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me where I used that data as part of my argument? I'd also like to know where I dogpiled on another's use of this information. Explain to me how this information is relevant to what I said to CH. I don't care about drudge or Dem underground. They both have their uses, and most of the time you can ignore them. factcheck.org is a different story. I like that one.

Just commenting on the FACT that if you use any remotely right data source, the dogpile forms instantly that it's patently false - only if it comes from a Soros-sponsored institution is is remotely considered factual.

Just commenting on the FACT that if you use any remotely right data source, the dogpile forms instantly that it's patently false - only if it comes from a Soros-sponsored institution is is remotely considered factual.

It's all a giant conspiracy! Boogy, boogy, boogy!

It's all a giant conspiracy! Boogy, boogy, boogy!

Obviously, you haven't read the thread. People want links, but before you can post one, they mention a list of those they will immediately disqualify.

So it's not a conspiracy, it's a habit here.

Here's an example:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080529/economy.html?.v=21

That link was taken directly from the Drudge Report page (most of his links are actually links to elsewhere. But, I'm sure people will say then that the link and its contents are utter bullshit.

Technically, we're not in a recession at this time, according to the news in the link. But I'm sure you'll say that's a fucking lie, and we're in the 2nd Great Depression right now...

You might want to worry then.

Apparently, this battle between Obama and Hillary has seriously crimped the DNC's ability to raise money, and you're only allowed to give so much from any one donor.

Obama is behind McCain on fundraising, and the DNC doesn't even have enough money to pay for the Denver convention at this point - the RNC is ahead of the DNC in fundraising.

First of all, the DNC is doing better than 2004. They are behind for the convention, but they always are.

As far as Obama, that's complete and obvious crap. Obama is setting records. McCain hasn't beat Obama in fundraising in any specific month, let alone overal. Obama is WAAAAAAY ahead.

Obviously, you haven't read the thread. People want links, but before you can post one, they mention a list of those they will immediately disqualify.

So it's not a conspiracy, it's a habit here.

Yes, yes. The grand liberal conspiracy. And the DNC conspiracy. And the black conspiracy. And the woman conspiracy. And the government conspiracy. And the Clinton conspiracy. And the NSG conspiracy.

Did I miss any of the conspiracies you've already ranted about in this thread? Is there ANYTHING you just take an rational approach to or does every reply have to be so far over the top that we're unable to take you remotely seriously?

Here's an example:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080529/economy.html?.v=21

That link was taken directly from the Drudge Report page (most of his links are actually links to elsewhere. But, I'm sure people will say then that the link and its contents are utter bullshit.

Technically, we're not in a recession at this time, according to the news in the link. But I'm sure you'll say that's a fucking lie, and we're in the 2nd Great Depression right now...

You gotta love those strawmen, huh? I wonder why they're known as a fallacy.

You gotta love those strawmen, huh? I wonder why they're known as a fallacy.

Not a fallacy. Go back in the thread, and read where people said that no link from the Drudge would be considered valid.

Fact.

Not a fallacy. Go back in the thread, and read where people said that no link from the Drudge would be considered valid.

Fact.

I'll accept Drudge.

http://pol.moveon.org/mccain10/email.html

If you accept this.

Not a fallacy. Go back in the thread, and read where people said that no link from the Drudge would be considered valid.

Fact.

Um, that's not all that you said. Like I said, you seem incapable of just making a reasonable argument. Everything has to make it seem like it's a grand conspiracy against you. Did you forget this...

Technically, we're not in a recession at this time, according to the news in the link. But I'm sure you'll say that's a fucking lie, and we're in the 2nd Great Depression right now...

These damn people at NSG expect me to use reliabe sources. It's a conspiracy by the liberal media to hide the truth. *runs around like hair is on fire*

You do realize that some sources, though they may be right on occasion, just aren't reliable. You, for example. When someone admits they spent the majority of their time on this site bullshitting, then people treat things that say as bullshit until proven otherwise. When someone tends to have valid data to backup their claims then they get a reputation that makes people give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Which category do you think you fit into? Which category do you think Drudge fits into?

I do believe that is very old data (03-06-08). We hashed through this a couple of months ago.

You realize your site uses some of the results from that, yes? You just invalidated your own source.

You realize your site uses some of the results from that, yes? You just invalidated your own source.

You deluded fool. Don't you realize that truth is not absolute, but relative to who it supports?

Just commenting on the FACT that if you use any remotely right data source, the dogpile forms instantly that it's patently false - only if it comes from a Soros-sponsored institution is is remotely considered factual.

I have a few things to say about this.

1. I take sources that have both a left and right bias. Some are just too far gone to take seriously. Newsmax.com for example is a bad "right" source. Similarly, sites like Democratic Underground are not top on my priority list.

2. When you make a comment directed at me it would be positive to debate me on something I actually said.

3. Calling out the "Soros Boogeyman argument" does not make what you say all that credible. George Soros is not Satan. Also, Karl Rove is not him either. Although I personally believe Rove to be a minion. George Soros is the new (old) cry for Uber-conservatives when they really just want to scream their tried and true "Liberal" instead.

4. My argument still stands as to the validity of CH and Shal's metric.

Here's an example:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080529/economy.html?.v=21

That link was taken directly from the Drudge Report page (most of his links are actually links to elsewhere. But, I'm sure people will say then that the link and its contents are utter bullshit.

Technically, we're not in a recession at this time, according to the news in the link. But I'm sure you'll say that's a fucking lie, and we're in the 2nd Great Depression right now...

I don't see anything wrong with a link from yahoo finance. I'll even accept drudge if it's backed up by factcheck.org or another more reputable source.

Speaking of sources, you all might find this interesting. I read every post without being able to see who wrote it. I get my first impression BEFORE I account for the poster. I do it by shrinking my screen so that only the post fits. It's occasionally confusing (until I look at the source) because we're so conversational, but it works well at checking myself. It keeps me from just automatically dismissing what someone says because of who said it.

The amusing side effect is that when one of you guys jokingly flames me or immitates another poster, it's particularly effective. The "deluded fool" comment was perfect for that. I actually laughed out loud when I read who wrote it.

Try it. I'm telling you, it's enlightening to read replies without know who wrote them.

Send lawyers, guns, and money...

How appropriate for W that the next line's "Dad get me out of this"

To me, the next question would be, "Is this any better than being racist herself?"

I might actually prefer an actual racist to someone who crassly uses racism as a tool.

Ultimately is there a difference?

Oh, and just something I realised reading the newspaper on the way home - one reason I find the Clinton campaign's "we are winning the popular vote" argument so objectionable is that it attempts to ignore my caucus in Iowa.

The state where I'm registered followed the rules. MI and FL didn't. But she wants to discount my participation and count that of the rule breakers. And people wonder why, after her trying to subvert the presidenct by being "copresident" (which ought to have disqualified her from this run, if she honesltly was copresident), Whitewater, Travelgate, the Vince Foster cover up, Filegate, cattle futures, "vast rightwing conspiracy" paranoid ramblings, New York Reverse Carpetbagging (New York did deserver her), support for the war in Iraq, the racist campaign, crocodile tears, etc.,etc. etc. etc., I might be inclinded to hold a negative opinion and use insulting language against someone who seems to discount my participation in the process because Iowa holds a caucus.

Ultimately is there a difference?

I guess it's the difference between someone being a manipulative asshole and a true-believer asshole. While the ultimate results may be the same, the idea of the manipulative asshole upsets me more than someone who really believes it.

I guess it's the difference between someone being a manipulative asshole and a true-believer asshole. While the ultimate results may be the same, the idea of the manipulative asshole upsets me more than someone who really believes it.

now that was funny

I remember polls, newspundits, and Democrats saying that Kerry was the winner all the way up to the election.
And I remember the exit polls after the election saying Kerry was the winner. I remain agnostic as to whether Bush actually won.

To me, the next question would be, "Is this any better than being racist herself?"

I might actually prefer an actual racist to someone who crassly uses racism as a tool.

I couldn't tell you, to be honest. I can tell you that in my mind it's a despicable tactic and a fine example of what is wrong with our current crop of government officials. Sadly, it's also par for the course.

You are misrepresenting the data to suit your electability argument.
The same argument could be made against you?

How can polls from 1, 1, 1, 1 polling agency even be a valid indicator of a race?
Perhaps you have forgotten my discussion with you in regards to the use of polls, especially one of your favourites (RCP)?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13600463&postcount=3371

Couple that with the fact that some of them were done on March 6th. It's almost the first of June. That's 3 months! That's intellectual dishonesty as I do not consider you stupid.
Two things:

1. You love to use RCP, even though some of the polling data can be over 2 or 3 months old. Interesting.

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

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

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

2. 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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

You can clearly read this info as well. Relevant polling: about two weeks unless you are showing a trend. Finally, there are newer polls, just not for SurveyUSA, which is what this site uses. Are you meaning to tell me that states and polling organizations haven't done a poll since March?
I guess that would make RCP irrelevant by your own admission? Now, is RCP omitting some polling data, or are they selectively choosing data that they prefer and ignoring others? Or is it also possible that a poll hasn't been done in certain states for 2 or 3 months?

BTW that site does not use SurveyUSA exclusively. There are several polling firms used, and new polls are added often.

What have they been getting paid to do then besides sit with their thumb up their #sses?
I guess sometimes they get paid to sit with their thumb up their asses?

This is why I throw "weighty words" around. When something is pure and utter bullshit, and my opponent should know this to be the case, I will not just sit there and smile.
Then quite a few of your fellow posters here, including yourself, are deserving of "weighty words" as well, considering that they have used data that is over 2 weeks old?

Or how about the ones that get addicted to favouring one poll over another, even though that one poll may differ from other polls? As I recall, you and another poster were frequently throwing up the latest Gallup polls when they were favouring your candidate?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13600661&postcount=3383

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13599534&postcount=3366

I'll tell you why your (and Shal's) entire premise behind your argument is dead wrong. Your premise is not only dead, but dead for so long that rigamortis has set and gone.
I really don't know what Shal's entire premise is, but I still maintain that many polls are validating what I have stated for quite some time....that Clinton is more electable than Obama. I also maintain that Obama can't win without Clinton on the ticket and that if he scores some weak red states, it will be offset by the loss of some weak blue states.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_swing_voters;_ylt=Ah1TTCF88cSKTLEpSqhhNPSs0NUE

This little study includes an extremely large sampling size. For this reason their MOE is lower, which is preferred. It's not just a matter of how a divided party is doing right at the moment. The long view is to see what a united Democratic party behind Barack Obama can do against John McCain. Those stats look better as each day passes. With time and money Barack can drive these numbers and allow them to continue to grow.
From your posted article, I was able to find a diamond in the rough.

Clicking on the Gallup link took me to a pop up link:

Gallup Poll: Hillary Clinton Beating Barack Obama Soundly in Swing States (http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=19128)

The latest Gallup Poll suggests that Hillary Clinton runs far better against John McCain than does her rival Barack Obama, not just in swing states but in a head to head battle for electoral votes in a hypothetical general election as well.

The new poll’s results indicate that in the states where she claimed victory, Sen. Hillary Clinton averages a seven percentage point lead over Sen. John McCain, while Barack Obama is locked in virtual tie with McCain in those same states, holding only a 46 percent to 45 percent lead.

The stark drop off in support for Barack Obama in these Democratic strongholds may prove to be Clinton’s strongest case for the nomination based on the Gallup results.

According to further analysis by Gallup’s Lydia Saad, in a hypothetical Clinton-McCain general election matchup Clinton leads McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, by 50 percent to 43 percent.

"Clinton is currently running ahead of McCain in the 20 states where she has prevailed in the popular vote," Saad writes, "while Obama is tied with McCain in those same states. Thus, at this stage in the race (before the general-election campaigns have fully engaged), there is some support for her argument that her primary states indicate she would be stronger than Obama in the general election.

"The same cannot be said for Obama in the 28 states and D.C. where he prevailed in the popular vote. As of now, in those states, he is performing no better than Clinton is in general-election trial heats versus McCain. Thus, the principle of greater primary strength translating into greater general-election strength — while apparently operative for the states Clinton has won — does not seem to apply at the moment to states Obama has won."

In November, Clinton's 20 states represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent 224 Electoral College votes, Gallup said.

This one is pure gold:
Last week, electoral maps leaked to ABC News from republican strategist Karl Rove consulting firm concurred with the Gallup analysis, suggesting that Hillary Clinton had a significantly stronger electoral advantage over John McCain than Barack Obama.

Added to the Gallup poll, this is more perplexing news for antsy democrats who, by the current numbers, may be nominating the weaker candidate in a crucial year.
The statistical analysis can be found here:

Hillary Clinton’s Swing-State Advantage (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx)

From your posted article, I was able to find a diamond in the rough.

Clicking on the Gallup link took me to a pop up link:

Gallup Poll: Hillary Clinton Beating Barack Obama Soundly in Swing States (http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=19128)



This one is pure gold:



The statistical analysis can be found here:

Hillary Clinton’s Swing-State Advantage (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107572/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-DoubleDigits.aspx

Curiously that poll, also by Gallup, had Hillary beating McCain, and Obama beating McCain. With Hillary doing all over 1 point better. Statistically insignificant.

The same argument could be made against you?

He's not making an electability argument. He's claiming your electability argument is wrong. See, we don't need an electability argument. He already won the primary.


Perhaps you have forgotten my discussion with you in regards to the use of polls, especially one of your favourites (RCP)?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13600463&postcount=3371

None of that supports your current argument.



Two things:

1. You love to use RCP, even though some of the polling data can be over 2 or 3 months old. Interesting.

And when the polls are old, we take that into account. You don't. In fact, when some of those polls came out, you completely ignored the results. You actually bashed their polling when it came out and now you're using a site that uses it. Obviously, the "truth" of something depends on what it supports. Kind of like how IDers use science.


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

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

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

2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

Yeah, because wikipedia is NEVER wrong. I've shown you debate sites that discuss how it can be unintentional. But if you like keep trying to prove that you are being intentionally dishonest.


I guess that would make RCP irrelevant by your own admission? Now, is RCP omitting some polling data, or are they selectively choosing data that they prefer and ignoring others? Or is it also possible that a poll hasn't been done in certain states for 2 or 3 months?

Each of those DO show recent polls. Obviously, there are more recents polls for Obama than Clinton, because Clinton isn't going to face McCain so they've stopped wasting their time.


BTW that site does not use SurveyUSA exclusively. There are several polling firms used, and new polls are added often.

Except the poll they are using in several states, you argued for some time was invalid. Isn't interesting how the winds change? Either the poll WAS valid and thus Hillary can only run strong when no one is running against, and, by fact, no one is campaigning against her at this point, or your site is invalid. Which is it?



I guess sometimes they get paid to sit with their thumb up their asses?

You realize you pointed to new polls, right?


Then quite a few of your fellow posters here, including yourself, are deserving of "weighty words" as well, considering that they have used data that is over 2 weeks old?

We generally add caveats. You don't seem to get how this works. Read some of the stuff by CTOAN, and you'll see him admitting that polls aren't gospels and are just good for getting a bit of a snapshot. Most other posters do that, too. YOU, on the other hand, will say a poll is invalid SIMPLY because you don't agree with the results, and the use parts of the SAME poll, again not explaining why it's suddenly valid, only because it supports your claim. That's intellectual dishonesty by definition and you've been called out on it.



Or how about the ones that get addicted to favouring one poll over another, even though that one poll may differ from other polls? As I recall, you and another poster were frequently throwing up the latest Gallup polls when they were favouring your candidate?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13600661&postcount=3383

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13599534&postcount=3366


I really don't know what Shal's entire premise is, but I still maintain that many polls are validating what I have stated for quite some time....that Clinton is more electable than Obama. I also maintain that Obama can't win without Clinton on the ticket and that if he scores some weak red states, it will be offset by the loss of some weak blue states.

Interestingly, the polls didn't start supporting that claim until no one was running against her and both she and her followers and McCain were against Obama.

I fully agree that so long as no one is actually running against her, she'll do very well in the general. Now, if, say, she were being attacked by Republicans like Obama is, current polling might be a bit more telling.

And for the definition of IRONY -

A lot of posters seem to be more intent on tearing Hillary down rather than building their candidate up.

Anyone want to guess what the level of participation CH had in the pro-Hillary thread? Anyone want to do an analysis for percentage of CH's posts that are pro-Hillary v anti-Obama? Anyone notice what he had to say about how he would vote if he could? All anti-Obama. Generally, if there is nothing good to say about your candidate, CH, then it's time to admit she should step down.

This one is pure gold:

When you start using Karl Rove as a source...

Meanwhile, thanks for showing that Republicans are currently supporting Hillary rather than attacking her. If this would be the climate of a general election she'd be in, then I'd agree she'd do better.

Anyone here believe Hillary is going to have Karl Rove and the majority of Republicans praising her if she were in the general?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107572/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-DoubleDigits.aspx

Curiously that poll, also by Gallup, had Hillary beating McCain, and Obama beating McCain. With Hillary doing all over 1 point better. Statistically insignificant.

Plus when the unperson becomes useful for once in her excuse for a life and starts campaigning for Obama instead of whining to be able to cheat, we should see him pick up a lot of steam.

When you start using Karl Rove as a source...

Meanwhile, thanks for showing that Republicans are currently supporting Hillary rather than attacking her. If this would be the climate of a general election she'd be in, then I'd agree she'd do better.

Anyone here believe Hillary is going to have Karl Rove and the majority of Republicans praising her if she were in the general?

Gee, let's see, why would Karl Rove try to make the Dem nomination race longer?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107572/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-DoubleDigits.aspx

Curiously that poll, also by Gallup, had Hillary beating McCain, and Obama beating McCain. With Hillary doing all over 1 point better. Statistically insignificant.
The other polls were detailing the 20 States won by Clinton and the 28 States won by Obama.

Plus when the unperson becomes useful and starts campaigning for Obama instead of whining to be able to cheat, we should see him pick up a lot of steam.

I biggest problem with CH's article is it's counting her as doing better largely because of California and New York, two very solidly democratic states who would vote Dem if we put a chimp on the ballot. Calling those wins for Hillary is a bit of a stretch. Now Florida is a legitimate concern, but again I think when Hillary decides to play nice for the first time in the campaign it'll fold in our favor. Possible it won't, but that depends largely on her and Obama. Right now it's his race to lose, and as we saw with Hillary a huge poll lead can disappear if you've got your head up your ass.

The other polls were detailing the 20 States won by Clinton and the 28 States won by Obama.

Yeah, I addressed that while you were posting. Also, your candidate lost. Stop fucking arguing that she's going to win the general. She won't be in it.

She hasn't thrown in the towel yet and now she has even more ammunition to keep her in the race and more ammunition to seek the VP slot, that is if she wants it.

The only reason she hasn't thrown in the towel is that she's delusional and insane. And no, she will not get the VP slot, Obama's smarter than that, she doesn't deserve the VP slot, she doesn't deserve the Las Vegas slot, and, right now, the only ammo she has is the one she uses to shoot herself in the paw.

Yeah, I addressed that while you were posting. Also, your candidate lost. Stop fucking arguing that she's going to win the general. She won't be in it.
Clinton hasn't conceded and her name is still on the ballot, and until that happens, she is a viable candidate. Obama supporters on this thread see Clinton as a liability, but she sure doesn't seem to be, especially if she is outpolling the heir apparent.

Clinton hasn't conceded and her name is still on the ballot, and until that happens, she is a viable candidate. Obama supporters on this thread see Clinton as a liability, but she sure doesn't seem to be, especially if she is outpolling the heir apparent.

CH, a player getting thrown out in your team is a liability, Clinton's a cancer.

Furthermore, Obama outpolls her in the vast majority of polls.

As for "she hasn't conceded", she already lost, no matter what the voices in her head tell her to do.

Clinton hasn't conceded and her name is still on the ballot, and until that happens, she is a viable candidate. Obama supporters on this thread see Clinton as a liability, but she sure doesn't seem to be, especially if she is outpolling the heir apparent.

She's not a viable democratic candidate. He has the majority of delegates. She cannot under any circumstances catch up. SHE LOST. She could go third party, that could be funny.

The only reason she hasn't thrown in the towel is that she's delusional and insane.
Obviously she is not delusional or insane.

And no, she will not get the VP slot, Obama's smarter than that, she doesn't deserve the VP slot, she doesn't deserve the Las Vegas slot, and, right now, the only ammo she has is the one she uses to shoot herself in the paw.
Clinton can help Obama win the White House. You don't want that?

Obviously she is not delusional or insane.

She certainly acts so.

Clinton can help Obama win the White House. You don't want that?

Yes. And the best way for her to be useful and do that is by campaigning for him OUTSIDE the ticket.

CH, a player getting thrown out in your team is a liability, Clinton's a cancer.
Half of the Democratic voters have backed Clinton. Obama will need those supporters.

Furthermore, Obama outpolls her in the vast majority of polls.
Certainly not the Gallup one.

Certainly not this forums favourite RCP....today anyways.

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

Half of the Democratic voters have backed Clinton. Obama will need those supporters.

They will fall behind Obama. Most of them already are, and when Hillary makes herself useful and starts working for Obama, the rest will.

Certainly not the Gallup one.

Certainly not this forums favourite RCP....today anyways.

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

The vast majority still does. Your point?

I biggest problem with CH's article is it's counting her as doing better largely because of California and New York, two very solidly democratic states who would vote Dem if we put a chimp on the ballot. Calling those wins for Hillary is a bit of a stretch. Now Florida is a legitimate concern, but again I think when Hillary decides to play nice for the first time in the campaign it'll fold in our favor. Possible it won't, but that depends largely on her and Obama. Right now it's his race to lose, and as we saw with Hillary a huge poll lead can disappear if you've got your head up your ass.
That article wasn't just about NY and Cal......it was about her Electoral College strength versus Obama and it states clearly that Clinton has a huge edge:

However, her victories also include several of the largest swing states that both parties will be battling to win in November: Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as wins in the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries. As a result, Clinton's 20 states represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.

(Note that the findings with Michigan and Florida data removed are virtually identical to those shown above. Clinton performs five percentage points better than Obama versus McCain in the states she has won (51% vs. 46%), excluding Michigan and Florida; Obama has virtually no advantage over Clinton versus McCain in the states he has won.)
That surely is going to raise some eyebrows.

Furthermore, Obama outpolls her in the vast majority of polls.

Certainly not the Gallup one.

Certainly not this forums favourite RCP....today anyways.

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

The vast majority still does. Your point?
What vast majority still does? You raised the point....I am looking for clarification of that point.

Gee, let's see, why would Karl Rove try to make the Dem nomination race longer?

I'm sure his reasons are entirely honorable.

I biggest problem with CH's article is it's counting her as doing better largely because of California and New York, two very solidly democratic states who would vote Dem if we put a chimp on the ballot. Calling those wins for Hillary is a bit of a stretch. Now Florida is a legitimate concern, but again I think when Hillary decides to play nice for the first time in the campaign it'll fold in our favor. Possible it won't, but that depends largely on her and Obama. Right now it's his race to lose, and as we saw with Hillary a huge poll lead can disappear if you've got your head up your ass.

I think CH has a point. Hillary Clinton is unbeatable for as long as the Republicans are promoting her rather than running against her, which as everyone knows is EXACTLY what will happen if she were to be in the general, right?

I'm sure his reasons are entirely honorable.

*Turns into Deanna Troi*

I sense... sarcasm.

*Looks down*

Hey! Look what you did!

What vast majority still does? You raised the point....I am looking for clarification of that point.

Should I spell it out? Ah well:

The vast majority of recent polls has Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton.

Should I spell it out? Ah well:

The vast majority of recent polls has Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton.
Not in the past 2 weeks.

Not in the past 2 weeks.

Yours to prove.

Another point to consider:

Public Says Media Harder on Clinton Than Obama, McCain (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107557/Public-Says-Media-Harder-Clinton-Than-Obama-McCain.aspx)

Although Americans in general think that news media coverage of the three major presidential candidates has been "about right," they are more inclined to say the media have been "too hard" on Hillary Clinton and "too easy" on Barack Obama and John McCain.

That article wasn't just about NY and Cal......it was about her Electoral College strength versus Obama and it states clearly that Clinton has a huge edge:


That surely is going to raise some eyebrows.

"Plus she can bowl better than him."

Might as well say that. None of that has anything to do with the contest they're in. He beat her. She's done. It's over. The supers wouldn't just have to flip for him to loose. They would have to go for her at about 7 to 1. There is NO way that's going to happen.

Yours to prove.
Nope. You raised the point. I challenged you to provide proof and I even offered several that disagreed.

Your proof sir?

Nope. You raised the point. I challenged you to provide proof and I even offered several that disagreed.

Your proof sir?

I made the claim that the vast majority of polls had Obama doing better against McCain than Hillary.

You linked to TWO polls and acted as if you had disproven my point.

If I link to three that prove mine, will you consider YOUR notion disproven?

It would appear that Obama's red state theory is not gaining traction, whereas, Clinton is poised to win red states such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, N. Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, and Missouri, whilst keeping the true blue states in the win column.

Where is the beef?

It would appear that Obama's red state theory is not gaining traction, whereas, Clinton is poised to win red states such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, N. Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, and Missouri, whilst keeping the true blue states in the win column.

Where is the beef?

You seem to be defining "red state" as "state that Bush carried in the last election".

Also, would you kindly back that statement up with anything?

I made the claim that the vast majority of polls had Obama doing better against McCain than Hillary.

You linked to TWO polls and acted as if you had disproven my point.

If I link to three that prove mine, will you consider YOUR notion disproven?
Actually the two I linked to, included more than two polls. Also the ones I linked to showed that Clinton was at least in a tie with McCain, and that Obama was actually losing to McCain in one.

And in your part of the world 3 is a vast majority?

You seem to be defining "red state" as "state that Bush carried in the last election".

Also, would you kindly back that statement up with anything?

You'll notice he's avoiding the true point. We all know the problem with his little theory. It suffers from the delusion that Hillary Clinton is in the same boat as Obama. She isn't. The Republicans aren't running against her. She's not in a general election. She's not in an election at all. She's just losing slowly. Comparing her current position to a general is like comparing Jay Leno to Martin Luther King.

However, Obama is actively IN the general. The only thing that will change is that all of the Dems will be backing him. The only reasonable conclusion is that he'll have more support.

She's not in a general election. Hell, republicans love her right now. In a general, she'd actually have to deal with being attacked. It would be hard to predict whether that would balance out with the addition support from Dems, but there just isn't any way to act like she's able to be compared to Obama at this point. She's not in the same race. She's not in the general. And no one is treating her like she is.

He is entirely unable to address these arguments, which is why he's pretending he can't see them.

You'll notice he's avoiding the true point.

I "will" notice? My friend, I already did. ;)

You seem to be defining "red state" as "state that Bush carried in the last election".
Actually, red state is a state that would normally vote Republican.

Also, would you kindly back that statement up with anything?
What statement?

Actually the two I linked to, included more than two polls. Also the ones I linked to showed that Clinton was at least in a tie with McCain, and that Obama was actually losing to McCain in one.

And in your part of the world 3 is a vast majority?

Nope, but in yours, 2 seems to be.

Actually, red state is a state that would normally vote Republican.

Of your list, only Florida voted Republican in 3 of the last 4 elections. Most did so in 2, and New Mexico in one.

What statement?

The statement that Clinton is doing better in them.

Nope, but in yours, 2 seems to be.
Actually in my part of the world, a simple majority is 50% + 1, which is what you now seem to be shooting for.

Still waiting for your vast majority of polls that favour Obama over Clinton vs. McCain.

Actually in my part of the world, a simple majority is 50% + 1, which is what you now seem to be shooting for.

Still waiting for your vast majority of polls that favour Obama over Clinton vs. McCain.

So, you want me to track down just about every poll in order to indulge you about a known fact?

So, you want me to track down just about every poll in order to indulge you about a known fact?

Play the same word games. Did you say current polls? Overall, what you said is a clear fact. She's only started doing well, because she is no longer being campaigned against by anyone.

So, you want me to track down just about every poll in order to indulge you about a known fact?
It isn't a matter of indulging me....it is a matter of backing up your talking points. Your reluctance to do so suggest that you made your comment rather hastily?

Furthermore, Obama outpolls her in the vast majority of polls.

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

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

Polls that Obama did better on.

Reuters
IBD
Battleground
Quinnipac
ABC News
POS/GQR
USA Today
CBS News
Hotline
NBC
Rasmussen
Pew Research
Reuters (another poll)
ABC/Wash
Hotline
Rasmussen
NBC/WSJ
Pew Research

and so on...

See how silly the word games get. He's trying to get you on hyperbole. But, it's true, when looking at all the polls, he won the vast majority.

I mean, come on, there are no real arguments left to have. She didn't start looking like she had an electability argument until Obama laid off her and the Republicans started promoting her. She couldn't last in the general. Hell, she couldn't win the primary foot race and she had a running start.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107572/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-DoubleDigits.aspx

Curiously that poll, also by Gallup, had Hillary beating McCain, and Obama beating McCain. With Hillary doing all over 1 point better. Statistically insignificant.

He's not very good with statistics. I'm not even throwing that as a jab as you CH. Admit it though, it's not your thing! The best thing I can say is I posted that poll twice in the enormity of these threads. We've gone from the mini-threads, the mega thread, the 1-3 threads. I apologize if I posted something more than once for you. Anyhow, this morning when I went to your site and moused over/clicked on, every single state. I guess I was just bored with my job at the time. As of this morning every single poll used was from SurveyUSA. Maybe the updated one tonight in the time I have been living life. My argument still holds true. RCP is a better metric than one single poll. Trends matter! I've also told you that my favorite metric is the odds makes in Vegas. When you follow their numbers they are right far more than any poll. Once again, spreadsheets, charts, figures, analysis, math acumen= Statistics! So I'll take Vegas and then RCP. March and it's coming on June?

It isn't a matter of indulging me....it is a matter of backing up your talking points. Your reluctance to do so suggest that you made your comment rather hastily?

Nope, it suggests I'd have to track down links to just about every poll to prove a known fact.

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

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

Polls that Obama did better on.

Reuters
IBD
Battleground
Quinnipac
ABC News
POS/GQR
USA Today
CBS News
Hotline
NBC
Rasmussen
Pew Research
Reuters (another poll)
ABC/Wash
Hotline
Rasmussen
NBC/WSJ
Pew Research

and so on...

See how silly the word games get. He's trying to get you on hyperbole. But, it's true, when looking at all the polls, he won the vast majority.

I mean, come on, there are no real arguments left to have. She didn't start looking like she had an electability argument until Obama laid off her and the Republicans started promoting her. She couldn't last in the general. Hell, she couldn't win the primary foot race and she had a running start.

So, he doesn't get me even on hyperbole? Wow.

I think CH has a point. Hillary Clinton is unbeatable for as long as the Republicans are promoting her rather than running against her, which as everyone knows is EXACTLY what will happen if she were to be in the general, right?

He also doesn't understand context. There's only one way that she wins, and I don't hate her for the comment. Even I think that was her just not realizing how stupid a fucking thing that was to say. I'd like Hillary to follow through on her promise to work for the "eventual Democratic nominee to make sure we put a Democrat in the White House." If she were to do that it would be honorable. Clintons and their words? A parting word: Context

Another point to consider:

Public Says Media Harder on Clinton Than Obama, McCain (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107557/Public-Says-Media-Harder-Clinton-Than-Obama-McCain.aspx)

Umm, amongst people who said "just right" the difference was 42-47. This is a plus but not huge. McCain is at 50% in the middle group as well. Lately the public has heard Hillary supporters (those who work for her) crying foul about any number of issues. It's sad because Hillary deserves better then to go out like she'd sell her mother for the job. I've said it before CH, I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I just think Barack Obama is better. I've shown why. As for Obamas short list? who do you think is on it?

Phil Bredesen

Tim Kaine

Jim Webb

Richardson

Joe Biden

In no particular order.

So, he doesn't get me even on hyperbole? Wow.
Actually, I do get you on hyperbole. The operative word you used is "still".

:D

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

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

Polls that Obama did better on.

Reuters
IBD
Battleground
Quinnipac
ABC News
POS/GQR
USA Today
CBS News
Hotline
NBC
Rasmussen
Pew Research
Reuters (another poll)
ABC/Wash
Hotline
Rasmussen
NBC/WSJ
Pew Research

and so on...

See how silly the word games get. He's trying to get you on hyperbole. But, it's true, when looking at all the polls, he won the vast majority.

I mean, come on, there are no real arguments left to have. She didn't start looking like she had an electability argument until Obama laid off her and the Republicans started promoting her. She couldn't last in the general. Hell, she couldn't win the primary foot race and she had a running start.

Ans scene: Followed by narration of: When some people refuse to give up, it just seems kind of sad. Fade to black... and quick a commercial of the snuggle bear to cheer everyone back up.

Umm, amongst people who said "just right" the difference was 42-47. This is a plus but not huge. McCain is at 50% in the middle group as well. Lately the public has heard Hillary supporters (those who work for her) crying foul about any number of issues. It's sad because Hillary deserves better then to go out like she'd sell her mother for the job. I've said it before CH, I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I just think Barack Obama is better. I've shown why. As for Obamas short list? who do you think is on it?

Phil Bredesen

Tim Kaine

Jim Webb

Richardson

Joe Biden

In no particular order.
There should be no "short" list.

Obama should be long on Hillary.

No Hillary....no White House.

Actually, I do get you on hyperbole. The operative word you used is "still".

:D

Let's assume for a moment that you do.

You're actually proud of this? You're trying to claim victory over me with THIS? Consider for one moment that I'm far from arguing with you at my full power!

Furthermore, I meant "still" as in "even so", not as in "time", even assuming you "get me" with regards to time.

What's next? I didn't rhyme, so you win? You and Clinton are indeed alike!

There should be no "short" list.

Obama should be long on Hillary.

No Hillary....no White House.

You got that wrong:

Yes Hillary = No White House.

She'd unite voters against Obama that wouldn't move their sorry asses otherwise and will not get anyone that wouldn't vote for him with her in her due place, campaigning only, anyways.

You got that wrong:

Yes Hillary = No White House.

She'd unite voters against Obama that wouldn't move their sorry asses otherwise and will not get anyone that wouldn't vote for him with her in her due place, campaigning only, anyways.

Running as an independent thinker, and someone who has mostly been an anti-establishment, this will not work. Short list affirmative. Anybody else care to throw in on this?

Running as an independent thinker, and someone who has mostly been an anti-establishment, this will not work. Short list affirmative. Anybody else care to throw in on this?

Ted Strickland would help with Ohio. Sebelius with women...

Sebelius with women...

I really, really like Sebelius. She helps the women vote, she has good crossover appeal (she made a Republican into a Democrat so he could be her Lt Gov), she fits the "change" goal, and her father was Gov of Ohio.

There should be no "short" list.

Obama should be long on Hillary.

No Hillary....no White House.

I'm assuming he's losing right now in the GE? Right? Without her, it's just black man v. the man? And everyone knows he can't win whites. . .

except in caucus states. . .

and the midwest. . .

and the northwest. . .

Aw, hell, she deserves it! She was supposed to be President! Every Lincoln needs a Johnson, every Garfield an Arthur, every McKinley a Roosevelt, every Kennedy a Johnson!

I really, really like Sebelius. She helps the women vote, she has good crossover appeal (she made a Republican into a Democrat so he could be her Lt Gov), she fits the "change" goal, and her father was Gov of Ohio.

Mmm... If she could use her father to get Ohio, it would be good enough, yes.

Let's assume for a moment that you do.

You're actually proud of this? You're trying to claim victory over me with THIS? Consider for one moment that I'm far from arguing with you at my full power!

Furthermore, I meant "still" as in "even so", not as in "time", even assuming you "get me" with regards to time.

What's next? I didn't rhyme, so you win? You and Clinton are indeed alike!

Perhaps he doesn't notice that "still" means it's been true for some time, not that you should ignore the older polls. He really sucks at these word games.

When did you say "still"? Is he knowing mixing posts together?

I really, really like Sebelius. She helps the women vote, she has good crossover appeal (she made a Republican into a Democrat so he could be her Lt Gov), she fits the "change" goal, and her father was Gov of Ohio.

I'm not sure what I think of her, yet. I still think the idea of asking a Republican would really speak to his intent to change things. And if that would work any year, it would be this year, especially if it was a Republican that generally appeals to Dems. Interestingly, it could have been John McCain 15 years ago, before he "lost his soul".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/obama_strategy;_ylt=AjAfLaOQQjfSHlqgbZkYW9h34T0D

"The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. "They were very conscious and aware of these nuances."

But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate.

"If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked," Fowler said. "The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good."

/race

Obviously, this article is a bit pro-Obama, but it pretty much captures what happened. Notice even a Clinton super has to admit that not only was Obama a good candidate but he ran a better campaign.

No, no, compulsory education through high school is government mandated mind control. You're supposed to memorize things, not think about them.

Oh, and we'll never cover topics like the Bonus Army in history class...
They totally covered the Bonus Army in my High School. Your school sucks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/obama_strategy;_ylt=AjAfLaOQQjfSHlqgbZkYW9h34T0D

"The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. "They were very conscious and aware of these nuances."

But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate.

"If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked," Fowler said. "The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good."

/race

Obviously, this article is a bit pro-Obama, but it pretty much captures what happened. Notice even a Clinton super has to admit that not only was Obama a good candidate but he ran a better campaign.
Even some of the ones that say it's sexism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/women_scorned.html) have acknowledged that a bit-
These are professional politicians, so they know that Clinton is on the verge of defeat because of her campaign's organizational mistakes, its failure to take Obama seriously early on, and the difficulties created by her husband's presence. Roberts points to an age split among women, noting that her 19-year-old daughter Kathleen is a staunch Obama supporter. Obama, Kopp said, clearly has a strong appeal "among younger women, though that's true among many older women, too."

Interestingly, something you don't often hear-
Indeed, Obama has the support of many prominent female elected officials, notably Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Govs. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. He won significant female support in the primaries, carrying a majority of the women's vote in 13 states and splitting it evenly with Clinton in Wisconsin.

Mississippi March 6th.
Mississippi is May 21 by Research 2000.

Florida mar 6th.
Florida is May 19 by Rasmussen.

Ahh, Georgia put a new poll up now. Mar 20th. Woohoo.
Georgia is May 6 by Rasmussen.

Ahh, South Carolina is Mar. 6th.
SC is actually Feb. 28 by SurveyUSA.

How are these relevant?
Are you looking at the same web site?

I'll continue...It's also all based on Survey USA.
Certainly not all SurveyUSA. There is a raft of pollsters represented on that site.

Oooh, they put their survey into a graph chart. That's why it's wrong CH. It's intellectually dishonest to say the least. I did not call you a liar there, just said you were not accurately representing the date.
Who is not accurately representing the date(s)?

As I stated before, I take the site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)at face value and they do list their updates.

Honestly anything over a week would be subject to 'old news' and not reflect any 'new news.' Again, it's foolish to rely too heavily on polls as a predictor, they just indicate progress and possibility. Actual wins in polls are not quite as important as the number of contests that are in play, because those numbers are either within the margin of error or they are close enough that movement will tip the scale.

SurveyUSA is the flimsiest metric yet, and I'm including the Onion's satirical 'first one to that door wins' metric.

And considering how often views change even in the dullest of races, current polling is important.


Personally, I'd say no more than a week, though preferably three days or closer.

Relevant polling: about two weeks unless you are showing a trend.
So, CTOAN suggests 1 week before polls become irrelevant.

Kyronea suggests that 3 days or earlier is preferable, no more than a week.

And Liuzzo states two weeks, unless showing a trend.

* just making notes

\
Who is not accurately representing the date(s)?


Seriously? Fucking seriously? Your 'get' on him is that now that the site has added some updated polls his two day old post is 'mis-representing' them...Wow, dude, where's the dignity? How lost is your case if that's what you gotta reach for?

I really, really like Sebelius. She helps the women vote, she has good crossover appeal (she made a Republican into a Democrat so he could be her Lt Gov), she fits the "change" goal, and her father was Gov of Ohio.

I think Jim Webb would be a good choice too. He'll bring the state of Virginia and shore up Obama's veteran cred even more. Of course I'd like to see Evan Bayh, but then I'm biased.

Not to much longer now till OBama is the nominee.

Not to much longer now till OBama is the nominee.

Or we have half the party declaring a winner and the other half continuing the 'stolen' narrative and taking the fight to the convention. Nevermind that floor fights lose party elections...and remember-it's not the person holding the bomb's fault, it's yours for not doing what they say...

Or we have half the party declaring a winner and the other half continuing the 'stolen' narrative and taking the fight to the convention. Nevermind that floor fights lose party elections...and remember-it's not the person holding the bomb's fault, it's yours for not doing what they say...

I keep hearing that there's going to be a stop to all of this (so says Dean) after early June, but you're right about the "stolen" narrative.

Obama's new preacher proceeds to embarrass him.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/30/obama.pfleger/index.html)
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said he was "deeply disappointed" by a sermon at his church this week that mocked Sen. Hillary Clinton.

A video making the rounds on YouTube shows the Rev. Michael Pfleger mocking Clinton for becoming teary-eyed before the New Hampshire primary in January.

In the video, Pfleger wipes his eyes with a handkerchief and suggests Clinton wept because she thought that as a white person and the wife of a former president, she was entitled to the presidency.

"And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' " Pfleger said during a sermon Sunday at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. "And [Clinton] said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!' " Video Watch Pfleger mock Clinton »

The video shows the congregation laughing and cheering.

Pfleger is a Catholic priest at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago's southwest side.

He is also a friend of Trinity's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from whom Obama distanced himself in April.
At the time, Obama said he was "outraged" by Wright's remarks suggesting the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community and equating some American wartime efforts with terrorism.

Obama has known Pfleger for more than 20 years.

His campaign condemned Pfleger's comments.

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us," Obama said in a statement Thursday.

"That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."

The Clinton camp also condemned Pfleger's remarks.

"Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics," the Clinton campaign said.

"We are disappointed that Sen. Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pfleger's despicable comments about Sen. Clinton and assume he will."
advertisement

Pfleger apologized for his comments Thursday evening.

"I regret the words I chose on Sunday," he said in a statement. "These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them."

Obama's new preacher proceeds to embarrass him.

It's the church, not the pastor. The church is into black liberation theology, where "the man" and "whitey" is the source of every single problem in the lives of black people. It's farcical to hear Obama deny that he's ever heard this sort of stuff. Now, you can go to a church your whole life and not believe a word of what you hear (take your typical Catholic, for instance), but in the case of this church, either he's been a member because it helped him politically at the time, or he actually believes the bullshit that the church espouses.

I keep hearing that there's going to be a stop to all of this (so says Dean) after early June, but you're right about the "stolen" narrative.

Pelosi says she'll 'end it' too by late June, but I don't know how either of them can. Frankly, at this point I don't know that Clinton herself can stop it. It's become bigger than her.

Mississippi is May 21 by Research 2000.


Florida is May 19 by Rasmussen.


Georgia is May 6 by Rasmussen.


SC is actually Feb. 28 by SurveyUSA.

Well, they updated their site yesterday from two days ago, good for them. Is still doesn't make 1 poll from May 6th entirely relevant when it comes to June.


Are you looking at the same web site?

Did you think by asking this question it somehow explained anything?


Certainly not all SurveyUSA. There is a raft of pollsters represented on that site.


Who is not accurately representing the date(s)?

As of the time of my posting that site included only surveyUSA numbers. That they have updated it (slightly) and I cannot be taken to task if you wait to respond and they change info.

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

Take a look at the battleground poll numbers on the left side. ?It's inclusive of more data points than your site.

I stand by me claim that polls are only a snapshot of the electorate at that given time. Things change greatly in short periods of time as has been pointed out to you on several occasions, most notably by CTOAN. THE METRIC I LIKE BEST, once again, is the one run by odds makers in Vegas. They have Hillary at 15/1, McCain at 3/2 and Obama running even.



As I stated before, I take the site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)at face value and they do list their updates.

That's just it. You take it at face value and others analyze the information. As Joc said, you invalidated your own source earlier in the thread.

Seriously? Fucking seriously? Your 'get' on him is that now that the site has added some updated polls his two day old post is 'mis-representing' them...Wow, dude, where's the dignity? How lost is your case if that's what you gotta reach for?

Wow, you jumped on exactly what I was going to say, and did in a post you'll find on this page. Next time he posts some numbers I'll wait a week and see if things change. Turnabout is fair play, is it not?

It's the church, not the pastor. The church is into black liberation theology, where "the man" and "whitey" is the source of every single problem in the lives of black people. It's farcical to hear Obama deny that he's ever heard this sort of stuff. Now, you can go to a church your whole life and not believe a word of what you hear (take your typical Catholic, for instance), but in the case of this church, either he's been a member because it helped him politically at the time, or he actually believes the bullshit that the church espouses.

You mean like McCain and the "Hitler was a godsend" pastor?

If you seek someone's endorsement, you ARE looking for their support. If you're looking for their support, you agree with them on most of the important issues, OR you are a moron who didn't check someone's creed before seeking for their support, OR a son of a bitch who sought the support just for convenience.

Furthermore, this is WAY out of the league of "God damn America", this is more a pastor mocking someone playing the victim because that person PLAYED THE VICTIM.

Do you have anything, ANYTHING against Obama that isn't guilt by association, last-name-ism, or outright lies and insinuations?

It's the church, not the pastor. The church is into black liberation theology, where "the man" and "whitey" is the source of every single problem in the lives of black people. It's farcical to hear Obama deny that he's ever heard this sort of stuff. Now, you can go to a church your whole life and not believe a word of what you hear (take your typical Catholic, for instance), but in the case of this church, either he's been a member because it helped him politically at the time, or he actually believes the bullshit that the church espouses.

Being a politician, probably the former.

Pelosi says she'll 'end it' too by late June, but I don't know how either of them can. Frankly, at this point I don't know that Clinton herself can stop it. It's become bigger than her.

She can stop it by stepping down.

Being a politician, probably the former.

I would agree on that one. I haven't yet seen a politician (well, maybe Huckabee, but he's too lame for words) who wasn't using religion as some sort of stage prop.