NationStates Jolt Archive

She can stop it by stepping down.

And then most of her supporters will don tinfoil hats, and insist that there the DNC is run at the highest levels by the Nation of Islam and Rush Limbaugh, and that they forced her to step down...

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?

Indeed.

She can stop it by stepping down.

See, here's what I'm afraid of-that she can't. I think she's painted herself into this corner that she can't get out of now. If Pelosi or Dean get her out, obviously that is the party pushing her out-but it's so ingrained now that even if she steps down on her own the people she's whipped up will 'read between the lines' and act like she's being pushed out. At that point even if she's genuine about her support it will come off as backhanded as her supporters carry on a fight without her and without a goal.

And then most of her supporters will don tinfoil hats, and insist that there the DNC is run at the highest levels by the Nation of Islam and Rush Limbaugh, and that they forced her to step down...

That will depend on her stepping down and doing her job of supporting Obama.

That will depend on her stepping down and doing her job of supporting Obama.

I think that too much hate has passed back and forth for that now...

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.

If the electorate would stop using their imaginary friends as a disproportionate weight in selecting their candidates that would come to an end.

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.

Oh and for the record, this preacher is white:
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/05/30/obama.pfleger/art.pfleger.file.afp.gi.jpg

He'd be the paleface on the left.

See, here's what I'm afraid of-that she can't. I think she's painted herself into this corner that she can't get out of now. If Pelosi or Dean get her out, obviously that is the party pushing her out-but it's so ingrained now that even if she steps down on her own the people she's whipped up will 'read between the lines' and act like she's being pushed out. At that point even if she's genuine about her support it will come off as backhanded as her supporters carry on a fight without her and without a goal.

Let's just hope you're wrong, wait and see...

After looking at the RCP numbers, Obama is winning PA, OH, WI, and CA. Two of those states were either Toss ups or McCain would win.

After looking at the RCP numbers, Obama is winning PA, OH, WI, and CA. Two of those states were either Toss ups or McCain would win.

Magnificent!

After looking at the RCP numbers, Obama is winning PA, OH, WI, and CA. Two of those states were either Toss ups or McCain would win.

Where was California a toss up? Fantasy land?

(I shouldn't say that, we have a anti gay marriage amendment on the ballot in November and McCain is the kind of Republican Cali votes for...but still...)

Where was California a toss up? Fantasy land?

(I shouldn't say that, we have a anti gay marriage amendment on the ballot in November and McCain is the kind of Republican Cali votes for...but still...)

Canuck's earlier Gallup article had both California and New York as tossups for Obama and wins for Clinton. Which took the articles credibility wadded it into a neat little ball and tossed it into the toilet.

Where was California a toss up? Fantasy land?

(I shouldn't say that, we have a anti gay marriage amendment on the ballot in November and McCain is the kind of Republican Cali votes for...but still...)

He won't be once the campaign is in a better motion. It's not hard to depict McCain for the neocon he's become.

Let's just hope you're wrong, wait and see...

It's possible. I just don't see a way out of her narrative and I'm afraid she doesn't either. But I could be wrong. Fingers crossed.

Canuck's earlier Gallup article had both California and New York as tossups for Obama and wins for Clinton. Which took the articles credibility wadded it into a neat little ball and tossed it into the toilet.

The other thing is that they have MI and WI as gains for the GOP from 2004. MI shows the new newest number at 45-44 with McCain on top of Obama by 1 point. How this indicated a pick up I do not know? WI is 43-47 according to the newest numbers. This is within MOE of that particular poll. So declaring those definite wins for McCain is statistically wrong.

The other thing is that they have MI and WI as gains for the GOP from 2004. MI shows the new newest number at 45-44 with McCain on top of Obama by 1 point. How this indicated a pick up I do not know? WI is 43-47 according to the newest numbers. This is within MOE of that particular poll. So declaring those definite wins for McCain is statistically wrong.

How wrong were the polls in the last election? And the one before that?

Where was California a toss up? Fantasy land?

(I shouldn't say that, we have a anti gay marriage amendment on the ballot in November and McCain is the kind of Republican Cali votes for...but still...)

Almost as good as the website he cited which said Massachusetts was a swing state.

EDIT: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/30/healing_the_wounds_of_democrats_sexism/

Excuse me while I laugh at this article. It continue's Ferraro's accusations that Obama's only winning because he's half-black and ignores the fact that racism in states like W. Virginia and Kentucky help Clinton and sexism has helpede her in a majority female electorate.

Almost as good as the website he cited which said Massachusetts was a swing state.

Yup. So is Texas. :p

Yup. So is Texas. :p

I also hear that McCain has a big lead in Illinois and he's winning the black vote by a huge margin. He's being helped by the unpopularity of President Gore.

I also hear that McCain has a big lead in Illinois and he's winning the black vote by a huge margin. He's being helped by the unpopularity of President Gore.

Plus Obama's winning the born-again Christian fundie vote. They vote for him due to his name.

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.

Question: is the manipulative racist any less a racist thant the "true blue" racist?

See, here's what I'm afraid of-that she can't. I think she's painted herself into this corner that she can't get out of now. If Pelosi or Dean get her out, obviously that is the party pushing her out-but it's so ingrained now that even if she steps down on her own the people she's whipped up will 'read between the lines' and act like she's being pushed out. At that point even if she's genuine about her support it will come off as backhanded as her supporters carry on a fight without her and without a goal.

And the problem here is that if this narriative actually works out that way and her backers buy into the delusion, it'd be the most damaging thing that could happen to the Dems. However, it'd be a Very Good Thing for US politics for the new wave of voters to turn their backs on both the Dems and GOP. Hillary's supporters wrecking Obama's campaign would be a catalyst.

I think that too much hate has passed back and forth for that now...

Hopefully someone Hillary trusts realises the spot she's in, and can sit her down and get her out of it.

And the problem here is that if this narriative actually works out that way and her backers buy into the delusion, it'd be the most damaging thing that could happen to the Dems. However, it'd be a Very Good Thing for US politics for the new wave of voters to turn their backs on both the Dems and GOP. Hillary's supporters wrecking Obama's campaign would be a catalyst.

It just happens to be a TERRIBLE time for it right now.

It just happens to be a TERRIBLE time for it right now.

Actually, we need a new party that isn't full of idiocy and self-aggrandizement...

Actually, we need a new party that isn't full of idiocy and self-aggrandizement...

K'pff. THat would be their campaign, sure...but then, as soon as a) one of the existing parties ceases to, or b) they merge, we return to the same this-or-that situation we have now.

Actually, we need a new party that isn't full of idiocy and self-aggrandizement...

Then let the bane of the world, the Republicans, split.

At least Robert "KKK" Byrd can get over his racism to endorse Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/19/byrd-endorses-obama/).


It's pretty obvious that the rest of West Virginia couldn't. But how many electoral votes is WVA anyway?

Almost as good as the website he cited which said Massachusetts was a swing state.

EDIT: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/30/healing_the_wounds_of_democrats_sexism/

Excuse me while I laugh at this article. It continue's Ferraro's accusations that Obama's only winning because he's half-black and ignores the fact that racism in states like W. Virginia and Kentucky help Clinton and sexism has helpede her in a majority female electorate.

At least Robert "KKK" Byrd can get over his racism to endorse Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/19/byrd-endorses-obama/).

For anyone claiming sexism on the part of Obama, get back to me when you have something equal to the "OMG! Hussein! In ethnic garb!" or "Let's 'fix' the pix" - say official campaign ads w/ HRC scrubbing floors, as Jocabia pointed out the other day....

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?
Nice try CTOAN but those were updated before his two day old post. If you go to the main page (http://www.electoral-vote.com/), the site is updated on a daily basis, and in the upper right corner you can click on previous report (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May29.html) or next report (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May31.html).

That is also why I asked him if he was on the same web site.

On each page is a listing as to what new polls have been added, and you can also scroll down to see the other polling data.

Since Liuzzo went out of his way to suggest that I was being "intellectually dishonest", I thought that the record should be set straight.

Your personal attacks aren't conducive to progressive debate.

It's pretty obvious that the rest of West Virginia couldn't. But how many electoral votes is WVA anyway?

You seem to assume WVA won't come to its senses and vote for Obama, but I'll answer: Less than CO, NM and Nevada.

Nice try CTOAN but those were updated before his two day old post. If you go to the main page (http://www.electoral-vote.com/), the site is updated on a daily basis, and in the upper right corner you can click on previous report (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May29.html) or next report (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May31.html).

That is also why I asked him if he was on the same web site.

On each page is a listing as to what new polls have been added, and you can also scroll down to see the other polling data.

Since Liuzzo went out of his way to suggest that I was being "intellectually dishonest", I thought that the record should be set straight.

Your personal attacks aren't conducive to progressive debate.

So, calling someone's argument intellectually dishonest is a personal attack, but telling them to go fuck themselves, as you DID, and don't even pretend that your "buy a vowel" crapola isn't that, isn't?

You seem to assume WVA won't come to its senses and vote for Obama.

You forget:

This whole election season (and in fact, for quite a while in US politics), even the attractive candidate (Obama in this case) has been engaged in the "who can have a staffer do the stupidest thing today" or "what close friend of mine can say the stupidest thing" or "what can I gaffe by pulling out of my ass today".

They (all the candidates) and their staffs are all doing it. Trying to trump each other in stupidity.

It's like a dogpile of stupid.

And you know what's worse? The electorate is pretty stupid, too.

Don't discount the stupid factor, especially in WVA.

The other thing is that they have MI and WI as gains for the GOP from 2004. MI shows the new newest number at 45-44 with McCain on top of Obama by 1 point. How this indicated a pick up I do not know?
It would be a pick up for the Reps IF McCain wins.

It just happens to be a TERRIBLE time for it right now.

Actually, we need a new party that isn't full of idiocy and self-aggrandizement...

K'pff. THat would be their campaign, sure...but then, as soon as a) one of the existing parties ceases to, or b) they merge, we return to the same this-or-that situation we have now.

Ya'll do realise the last time that we saw a party replaced, we had the US Civil War...

I don't think we'll see another, but the change will be equally disruptive...

It would be a pick up for the Reps IF McCain wins.

"Pick up" in that context would mean "easy win". Not all wins are easy.

"Pick up" in that context would mean "easy win". Not all wins are easy.
Nothing is suggesting that it would be an "easy win".....it is a suggestion as to which way the electorate is leaning, which is barely, weakly or strongly.

Nothing is suggesting that it would be an "easy win".....it is a suggestion as to which way the electorate is leaning, which is barely, weakly or strongly.

Oh boy. Can someone tell him what "pickup" means in this context?

Maybe someone can tell me what "gaffe" means. I thought it meant putting your foot in your mouth (i.e., a Bushism).

You forget:

This whole election season (and in fact, for quite a while in US politics), even the attractive candidate (Obama in this case) has been engaged in the "who can have a staffer do the stupidest thing today" or "what close friend of mine can say the stupidest thing" or "what can I gaffe by pulling out of my ass today".

They (all the candidates) and their staffs are all doing it. Trying to trump each other in stupidity.

It's like a dogpile of stupid.

And you know what's worse? The electorate is pretty stupid, too.

Don't discount the stupid factor, especially in WVA.


It's true. I heard some of them even believe there is a vast leftwing conspiracy and that Hillary is conspiring to execute Obama.

What in your post has value? We get it, everyone should spend their time worrying about trivial things rather than important things. And everyone except you is stupid. And NSG is conspiring against you. And Hillary is really a man. And the Chinese are wearing white people disguises and taking over our credit card companies. Did I miss anything?

It would be a pick up for the Reps IF McCain wins.

I believe that McCain has already won, or will Hillary be able to assassinate him before the RNC?

Did I miss anything?

It's all a sexist conspiracy and 9/11 was done by the Zionists/Bush/Gore/Kerry/Liberals/Conservatives/Anti-Americans/Nationalists/Global Warming/Scientologists/Anonymous

It's true. I heard some of them even believe there is a vast leftwing conspiracy and that Hillary is conspiring to execute Obama.

What in your post has value? We get it, everyone should spend their time worrying about trivial things rather than important things. And everyone except you is stupid. And NSG is conspiring against you. And Hillary is really a man. And the Chinese are wearing white people disguises and taking over our credit card companies. Did I miss anything?

Yes. We're laughing at you over on another forum.

:rolleyes: anywayyyyyyyyyyyy


So lets figure out the best way to target all of the hard to get demographics.


The evangelical groups? Help usher in the end times and bring Gods perfect judgment. Vote Obama.

Yes. We're laughing at you over on another forum.

Good. I would start to worry if you started taking me seriously, given what passes for "serious information" in the circle of personalities in your ... I mean, the circle of personalities that control your nation.

Tell me more about the government propaganda and the conspiracy by Hillary Clinton. Then make an ironic comment about tinfoil hat theories.

Good. I would start to worry if you started taking me seriously, given what passes for "serious information" in the circle of personalities in your ... I mean, the circle of personalities that control your nation.

Tell me more about the government propaganda and the conspiracy by Hillary Clinton. Then make an ironic comment about tinfoil hat theories.

The others aren't my "personalities". They're other members of NS General who are not me.

Dobbs in particular, but others as well.

The others aren't my "personalities". They're other members of NS General who are not me.

Dobbs in particular, but others as well.

OH please, there are like two or three of you at most. We're also all talking shit about each other. That's the great thing about UMP. We have the freedom to get our assholiness out at whatever extreme levels we wish.


Wait, is this your way of getting UMP recruits by enticing them to join and flame you?

Back to courting people to vote for Obama.


The old people vote: Want your children and grandchildren to visit you in the home? Obama '08

Yes. We're laughing at you over on another forum.
UMP huh? It certainly fits you well.

my god (and by that I mean Nintendo Wii) can't we get back to adulthood for a bit?

my god (and by that I mean Nintendo Wii) can't we get back to adulthood for a bit?

I thought you were an atheist.

I thought you were an atheist.

nope

The others aren't my "personalities". They're other members of NS General who are not me.

Dobbs in particular, but others as well.

Didn't quite understand my last post, huh? No worries. I do find it amusing that you're so desperate to take a dig at me that you'd use that one. How about we focus on this thread and not worry about the company you keep, k? K.

Oh, and give Dobbsy a big kiss and hug from me. I know he misses me.

Nice try CTOAN but those were updated before his two day old post. If you go to the main page (http://www.electoral-vote.com/), the site is updated on a daily basis, and in the upper right corner you can click on previous report (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May29.html) or next report (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May31.html).

That is also why I asked him if he was on the same web site.

On each page is a listing as to what new polls have been added, and you can also scroll down to see the other polling data.

Since Liuzzo went out of his way to suggest that I was being "intellectually dishonest", I thought that the record should be set straight.

Your personal attacks aren't conducive to progressive debate.

You know what? I'll throw you the bone that poking around right now I can't see where Luizzo got his numbers in the way it seemed clear when I made the post. Since I can't find whatever it was I was seeing when I made it, I'm forced to admit it was a mistake.

As for your wounded little ego and 'progressive debate,' I'll get you a tissue. I've handled you with kid gloves and at one point was reduced to begging you, literally fucking begging you, for 'progressive' debate. The long and short of it is that while I don't know where Luizzo got his dates, many of those polls are months out of date, and in some cases compare states with polls that were not taken at the same time as polling companies stop polling Clinton numbers because it isn't relevant anymore or whatever. So while adhering to polls taken now as some sort of perfect gauge of November is flimsy, trying to hold the last bastion of the electability argument on a map made up such a fractured sample set is extremely flawed-whether Luizzo got those polling dates correct or not, that is the take away, the salient part of the debate. Quibbling the details isn't progressive, it's a back and forth of 'gotchas,' so you'll forgive me if I shrug off you lecture. You've spent more time in here quibbling bullshit and whining than progressing the debate and you'll forgive me if after months of this nonsense I don't have the patience to coddle your tender little feelings anymore.

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".

I actually like the idea of a split-party ticket. Then again, I'm not a party loyalist. I'm not entirely certain how it would play with Dems.

I've always rather liked the idea of Colin Powell as his running mate. I don't think Powell is as damaged by his association with Bush, since he was so obviously disgusted with administration and got the heck out. And he'd bring in the foreign policy and diplomatic experience that Republicans will argue Obama is missing.

That's probably a pipe-dream, though.

Question: is the manipulative racist any less a racist thant the "true blue" racist?

Depends on how you define racist. The manipulator is using the racism of others to her own ends - even though she knows better personally. The true believer racist actually believes the crap she spouts.

In my mind, the former is more evil.

As for your wounded little ego and 'progressive debate,' I'll get you a tissue. I've handled you with kid gloves and at one point was reduced to begging you, literally fucking begging you, for 'progressive' debate. The long and short of it is that while I don't know where Luizzo got his dates, many of those polls are months out of date, and in some cases compare states with polls that were not taken at the same time as polling companies stop polling Clinton numbers because it isn't relevant anymore or whatever. So while adhering to polls taken now as some sort of perfect gauge of November is flimsy, trying to hold the last bastion of the electability argument on a map made up such a fractured sample set is extremely flawed-whether Luizzo got those polling dates correct or not, that is the take away, the salient part of the debate. Quibbling the details isn't progressive, it's a back and forth of 'gotchas,' so you'll forgive me if I shrug off you lecture. You've spent more time in here quibbling bullshit and whining than progressing the debate and you'll forgive me if after months of this nonsense I don't have the patience to coddle your tender little feelings anymore.

Not to mention it's like Clinton's camp producing racist literature and then complaining that they lost because of sexism. It's just an attempt to take the debate away from things that are relevant. Because on the relevant facts, he is losing and he knows it.

His candidate is losing.

Her electability argument relies on ignoring the current position of the two candidates.

Her popular vote argument relies on ignoring states that voted legally and including states that didn't.

Her disenfranchisement argument requires us to ignore her previous positions, the postions of most of her camp, the fact that she doesn't want to enfranchise Obama supporters in Michigan and all the pertinent facts surrounding the votes that occurred.

HIS VP argument requires us to ignore her baggage, that her being VP doesn't heal the damage that she's caused, that she undermines the entire message of Obama's campaign, that it validates all of the arguments she's handed the GOP against the Democratic candidate, etc.

There isn't really anything left to argue for, for Clinton supporters. They know as well as we do, that if somehow she managed to actually pull enough Supers to get party insiders to overturn the outcome of the rest of the election in the year people have been crying for change would alienate even some of her former supporters. It's simply not going to happen.

You forget:

This whole election season (and in fact, for quite a while in US politics), even the attractive candidate (Obama in this case) has been engaged in the "who can have a staffer do the stupidest thing today" or "what close friend of mine can say the stupidest thing" or "what can I gaffe by pulling out of my ass today".

They (all the candidates) and their staffs are all doing it. Trying to trump each other in stupidity.

It's like a dogpile of stupid.

And you know what's worse? The electorate is pretty stupid, too.

Don't discount the stupid factor, especially in WVA.

WV has only 5 electoral votes, and being from there, I feel like I should mention a couple of things that have been bothering me about the recent polling.

Heikoku, while I too would hope that West Virginians would come around to voting for Obama, I can all but guarantee you that they will not. I spent most of my time in WV in some of the most liberal areas in the state, and the racism was more than appalling.

In addition, despite what the polls seem to be saying, I would find it incredibly difficult to believe that WV would vote for Clinton either. The state has become incredibly conservative in the past 10 years or so, so much so that I doubt they will vote for any Democrat in the near future.

WV has a different demographic than much of the rest of the country. It is part north, part south, and all Appalachian. It is the heart of poverty-stricken Appalachia. Not only does this have implications to elections, but it also is relevant to polling. I know for a fact that there are a whole lot of people (my guess would be a pretty high percentage, but still less than a majority) who will be voting in November, but not taking part in any polls prior to the election (at least, they haven't in the past). This is especially true for any internet polls, which will skew Democratic. Much of the casual, uninformed, or otherwise uninterested electorate will be heavily favoring the Republicans.

So I guess the point of this post is to make a prediction: WV will not go Democratic, regardless of who the nominee is. And at 5 EC votes, it doesn't even really matter.

WV has only 5 electoral votes, and being from there, I feel like I should mention a couple of things that have been bothering me about the recent polling.

Heikoku, while I too would hope that West Virginians would come around to voting for Obama, I can all but guarantee you that they will not. I spent most of my time in WV in some of the most liberal areas in the state, and the racism was more than appalling.

In addition, despite what the polls seem to be saying, I would find it incredibly difficult to believe that WV would vote for Clinton either. The state has become incredibly conservative in the past 10 years or so, so much so that I doubt they will vote for any Democrat in the near future.

WV has a different demographic than much of the rest of the country. It is part north, part south, and all Appalachian. It is the heart of poverty-stricken Appalachia. Not only does this have implications to elections, but it also is relevant to polling. I know for a fact that there are a whole lot of people (my guess would be a pretty high percentage, but still less than a majority) who will be voting in November, but not taking part in any polls prior to the election (at least, they haven't in the past). This is especially true for any internet polls, which will skew Democratic. Much of the casual, uninformed, or otherwise uninterested electorate will be heavily favoring the Republicans.

So I guess the point of this post is to make a prediction: WV will not go Democratic, regardless of who the nominee is. And at 5 EC votes, it doesn't even really matter.

Is anyone else really horrified that the backbone of a major 21st century American political party is the didn't graduate highschool and proud of it demographic? Sweet zombie Jesus.

WV is a red state true enough, Hillary crowing her victory there and in Kentucky (another state renowned nationwide for it's high value on education) is just sad. Sure she can do well in states that the Democrats couldn't win anyway.

I actually like the idea of a split-party ticket. Then again, I'm not a party loyalist. I'm not entirely certain how it would play with Dems.

I've always rather liked the idea of Colin Powell as his running mate. I don't think Powell is as damaged by his association with Bush, since he was so obviously disgusted with administration and got the heck out. And he'd bring in the foreign policy and diplomatic experience that Republicans will argue Obama is missing.

That's probably a pipe-dream, though.

I had him in mind when I posted. He represents a much more reasonable Republican party. He would be a great example of who should be reached out to. I am also not a fan of either party.

So, let me see if I have this straight.

First, the Obama supporters call Hillary supporters racist.

Then they call us stupid.

Then they tell us it doesn't matter what our vote is, Hillary should step aside.

Then they call us stupid again, while implying we're not only stupid, we're stupidly racist.

And now we're supposed to smile and vote for Obama?

Don't think so. I'll be voting for Ralph Nadar come November. I expect a lot of other Hillary supporters will be doing the same.

So, let me see if I have this straight.

First, the Obama supporters call Hillary supporters racist.

Then they call us stupid.

Then they tell us it doesn't matter what our vote is, Hillary should step aside.

Then they call us stupid again, while implying we're not only stupid, we're stupidly racist.

And now we're supposed to smile and vote for Obama?

Don't think so. I'll be voting for Ralph Nadar come November. I expect a lot of other Hillary supporters will be doing the same.

Please to be finding me one instance of anyone doing that. Well, any instance where it's not backed up by evidence of said racism.

So, let me see if I have this straight.

First, the Obama supporters call Hillary supporters racist.

Then they call us stupid.

Then they tell us it doesn't matter what our vote is, Hillary should step aside.

Then they call us stupid again, while implying we're not only stupid, we're stupidly racist.

And now we're supposed to smile and vote for Obama?

Don't think so. I'll be voting for Ralph Nadar come November. I expect a lot of other Hillary supporters will be doing the same.

If you're unwilling to support a candidate, not because of their policies or anything they have done, but because your feelings got hurt by some of their supporters, then the stupid label is well deserved.

If you're unwilling to support a candidate, not because of their policies or anything they have done, but because your feelings got hurt by some of their supporters, then the stupid label is well deserved.

Four more years of Bush is worth it right? I mean because he got his feelings hurt by the completely factual statement that race played a major part in why Hillary got as many votes as she did. He should take his ball (vote) and go home (Nader).

So, let me see if I have this straight.

First, the Obama supporters call Hillary supporters racist.

"They" called some Hillary supporters racist. So are some of Obama's. Just like some Obama supporters are sexist. So are some of Hillary's.


Then they call us stupid.

Who called Hillary supporters stupid? Who is this mystical "they" and "us"? I didn't realize supporters are hive minds.


Then they tell us it doesn't matter what our vote is, Hillary should step aside.

No, "they" tell you that she lost and as such should accept that and do what she can to aid the party in November.


Then they call us stupid again, while implying we're not only stupid, we're stupidly racist.

Again, who is "they" and who is "us"?


And now we're supposed to smile and vote for Obama?

What does any of this have to do with Obama? Shouldn't we choose a President based on *gasp* that person? Do you really want to base your vote on spite?


Don't think so. I'll be voting for Ralph Nadar come November. I expect a lot of other Hillary supporters will be doing the same.

If McCain wins will they soldiers who suffer because of it "deserve it"? When McCain wins will the women who no longer have control of their bodies "deserve it"?

So, let me see if I have this straight.

First, the Obama supporters call Hillary supporters racist.

Then they call us stupid.

Then they tell us it doesn't matter what our vote is, Hillary should step aside.

Then they call us stupid again, while implying we're not only stupid, we're stupidly racist.

And now we're supposed to smile and vote for Obama?

Don't think so. I'll be voting for Ralph Nadar come November. I expect a lot of other Hillary supporters will be doing the same.

That's IT!

Hillary supporters in this page whined and called us arrogant whenever we dared to disagree with them, in the politest of terms.

They called us sexists, and claimed Hillary has the RIGHT to get votes for running unopposed in Michigan.

I got banned for three days, which ended up in my nation's first deletion, because of the victim complex Hillary infused her supporters with.

And you know what? I'd still support that cursed, shrew of a hag, against McCain, should she somehow steal the nomination.

You know why? Because if McCain gets elected, PEOPLE WILL DIE, and the world will become a DARKER PLACE.

Something I would not allow or cause out of spite, let alone out of spite over imagined wrongs.

Get the hell over yourself, even ASSUMING you were this "offended", which good money says you were not.

There's a tacit implication in all of this handwringing and grousing about the poor, jilted Clinton supporters who were so wronged in this election, an implication the Obama camp can't make but the more I think about it it's staring us in the face.

Obama and his supporters have to bend over backwards talking about how strong a candidate and what a great campaign she ran.

At the same time they have to listen to how wronged the Clinton camp was. Not that Obama ran a better campaign, not that a majority of voters thought he was the best candidate-no, they're either 'bedazzled' or manipulated by a sexist media or in fact sexist themselves. Over half of the party has to sit on their hands and bite their tongues while the other half calls them everything from gulible, to sexist, to conspirasists. And they get to suffer a tongue lashing at how 'mean' they are to the same supporters that are calling them these things. When you step back and look at it it's patently silly.

Granted it's not uncommon to think people who go for their candidates opponents are missing something crucial, but this cartoon has gotten ridiculous. There's every excuse under the sun why she lost and the bulk of them demean the Obama supporters worse than what the constantly 'warn' the Obama supporters of insulting them.

Was there sexism? Hell yes. What the fuck did you expect? Was there racism-sweet zombie Jesus, of course there was. Was Obama asked if Clinton was a Muslim? If you're going to be a ground breaking candidate you're going to have to strap up, dammit. Ask pretty much everyone who has broken a barrier of any kind at any time. If you're the one to break through then you have to be the one who over comes it. We shouldn't have to explain this.

But they can't say anything. They can't take offense. They can't acknowledge all the dirt being kicked in their face. They have to sit quietly and say "Thank you...no, of course you're right...we're bastards..." because otherwise they'll take their ball and go home, vote against their personal interests and pull down the roof of the party because Obama had the audacity to run a better campaign, because despite having his preacher drug around the news cycle and people as late as the West Virginia primary voting against him because 'they've had enough of Huissen,' he over came it. And we're supposed to believe it's because the media that ran those stories were being nice to him. He's been simultaneously a member of a radical black church and a muslim-but his campaign overcame that and for that they get to be villianized by the campaign that couldn't overcome their own hurdles. It's bullshit and it's sad that they get a walk on it.

There's a tacit implication in all of this handwringing and grousing about the poor, jilted Clinton supporters who were so wronged in this election, an implication the Obama camp can't make but the more I think about it it's staring us in the face.

Obama and his supporters have to bend over backwards talking about how strong a candidate and what a great campaign she ran.

At the same time they have to listen to how wronged the Clinton camp was. Not that Obama ran a better campaign, not that a majority of voters thought he was the best candidate-no, they're either 'bedazzled' or manipulated by a sexist media or in fact sexist themselves. Over half of the party has to sit on their hands and bite their tongues while the other half calls them everything from gulible, to sexist, to conspirasists. And they get to suffer a tongue lashing at how 'mean' they are to the same supporters that are calling them these things. When you step back and look at it it's patently silly.

Granted it's not uncommon to think people who go for their candidates opponents are missing something crucial, but this cartoon has gotten ridiculous. There's every excuse under the sun why she lost and the bulk of them demean the Obama supporters worse than what the constantly 'warn' the Obama supporters of insulting them.

Was there sexism? Hell yes. What the fuck did you expect? Was their racism-sweet zombie Jesus, of course there was. Was Obama asked if Clinton was a Muslim? If you're going to be a ground breaking candidate you're going to have to strap up, dammit. Ask pretty much everyone who has broken a barrier of any kind at any time. If you're the one to break through then you have to be the one who over comes it. We shouldn't have to explain this.

But they can't say anything. They can't take offense. They can't acknowledge all the dirt being kicked in their face. They have to sit quietly and say "Thank you...no, of course you're right...we're bastards..." because otherwise they'll take their ball and go home, vote against their personal interests and pull down the roof of the party because Obama had the audacity to run a better campaign, because despite having his preacher drug around the news cycle and people as late as the West Virginia primary voting against him because 'they've had enough of Huissen.' He's been simultaneously a member of a radical black church and a muslim-but his campaign overcame that and for that they get to be villianized by the campaign that couldn't overcome their own hurdles. It's bullshit and it's sad that they get a walk on it.

As someone who got screwed over because of this, let me say A-fucking-men.

It's bullshit and it's sad that they get a walk on it.

Isn't the moral high ground a bitch? I'd say we take these Hillary sycophants to the mat, but that's not how Obama wants to run things. So I guess we play nice while they get to play hardball. It's alright though, we have to keep the party together. If we don't, and we sink to their level it'll cause a schism in the party. That happens and McCain wins, which is doubtless what the Republicans want, and what more than one "Hillary" supporter in this thread wants. As Heikoku said though we can't let that happen or people will die.

So grit your teeth, and remember "Please sir may I have another".

Isn't the moral high ground a bitch? I'd say we take these Hillary sycophants to the mat, but that's not how Obama wants to run things. So I guess we play nice while they get to play hardball. It's alright though, we have to keep the party together. If we don't, and we sink to their level it'll cause a schism in the party. That happens and McCain wins, which is doubtless what the Republicans want, and what more than one "Hillary" supporter in this thread wants. As Heikoku said though we can't let that happen or people will die.

So grit your teeth, and remember "Please sir may I have another".

I could argue that since I'm not a Democrat (really, never registered for the party) I don't have to worry about party unity, or argue that if someone is changing their vote to McCain or a third party because of something I said that 'offended' them, not only not part of the campaign but not even the party, they're pretty goddamn stupid. Not to mention by making that post the cats pretty much out of the bag. But no, the Obama campaign can't say any of that. The supporters can't really take that stance. They have to take the temper tantrum and pretend like it's legitimate. And that's just sad.

I could argue that since I'm not a Democrat (really, never registered for the party) I don't have to worry about party unity, or argue that if someone is changing their vote to McCain or a third party because of something I said that 'offended' them, not only not part of the campaign but not even the party, they're pretty goddamn stupid. Not to mention by making that post the cats pretty much out of the bag. But no, the Obama campaign can't say any of that. The supporters can't really take that stance. They have to take the temper tantrum and pretend like it's legitimate. And that's just sad.

Crime and politics, the situation is always fluid. Just often a puddle of piss. Things will change, assuming Hillary keeps her word she'll fall in line. Then hopefully her lackeys will can the Republican style attack campaign they've been running.

It occurs to me that McCain can use this primary against Obama. He claims Obama will appease Americas enemies, what better way to demonstrate than with Hillary? She's ran a vicious campaign attacking like mad, all Obama has done is absorb and appease. I can hear the stupid ads now.

Crime and politics, the situation is always fluid. Just often a puddle of piss. Things will change, assuming Hillary keeps her word she'll fall in line. Then hopefully her lackeys will can the Republican style attack campaign they've been running.

Two women just sat on Fox News stating they speak for 10 million voters who voted for Hillary in saying the DNC split the party. They plan to fight on, with or without her. The Democratic Party will not win the Presidency in 2008, I can assure you of that. Thank you, Hilary Clinton, for officially wasting my first vote.

Two women just sat on Fox News stating they speak for 10 million voters who voted for Hillary in saying the DNC split the party. They plan to fight on, with or without her. The Democratic Party will not win the Presidency in 2008, I can assure you of that. Thank you, Hilary Clinton, for officially wasting my first vote.

Relax. I doubt the morons actually speak for 10 million people, and even if they do, the polls still favor Obama.

Two women just sat on Fox News stating they speak for 10 million voters who voted for Hillary in saying the DNC split the party. They plan to fight on, with or without her. The Democratic Party will not win the Presidency in 2008, I can assure you of that. Thank you, Hilary Clinton, for officially wasting my first vote.

Clinton has only garnered 16,227,514 votes total. 2/3 Clinton supporters are fucking crazy?

Relax. I doubt the morons actually speak for 10 million people, and even if they do, the polls still favor Obama.

They favored him in New Hampshire.

Clinton has only garnered 16,227,514 votes total. 2/3 three Clinton supporters are fucking crazy?

To quote, "I don't think we represent all 17 million supporters. but maybe like 10 million. I mean, we put up the site just a few days ago, and went through, uh, it went through its second revolution in hits."

Not that the hits comment makes any sense, but still.

They favored him in New Hampshire.



To quote, "I don't think we represent all 17 million supporters. but maybe like 10 million. I mean, we put up the site just a few days ago, and went through, uh, it went through its second revolution in hits."

Not that the hits comment makes any sense, but still.

They're counting hits to their website as people who'll continue on? Well clearly they're crazy, so is Fox.

Clinton has only garnered 16,227,514 votes total. 2/3 Clinton supporters are fucking crazy?

Give me a break. 10 million women aren't going to vote for a candidate who has one of the most anti-choice stances one can have. They are not going to help cause the overturning of Roe v Wade, which wasn't actually a real threat 10 years ago, but is a very real threat in the current climate.

Seriously, it would be the most self-damaging event in recent history. Not only that, but I can hear the arguments form McCain's cabinet now. "The vast majority of American women wanted a social conservative in the White House. Don't tell us that women don't agree with us on abortion. Our stance has not changed and they supported us overwhelmingly."

Lest we forget, here are some of the things that we're fighting about this election, fighting for -

Veteran's benefits. Just treating those who serve in a manner consistent with WWII veterans and the like.

Women's bodily autonomy.

Medical care.

Our economy.

The Iraq War.

The war in Afghanistan.

Destroying the Patriot Act to stop pretending like Americans have rights, and actually, you know, recognize the rights of Americans.

Updating NAFTA to put workers on equal footing.

The willful capture of "enemy combatants" and a complete denial of their rights.

Torture. Keep in mind that because of the last two, we've signaled to the world that if you think you're right, it's perfectly okay to torture and permanently detain our men and women.

I'm sure there are more that I'm not thinking of right now. If you think McCain is the best candidate on these issues vote for him. If not, I just want you to remember you supported the destruction of rights, voted against supporting our troops, voted for an aggressive war and vote against the rights of women. I couldn't live with that, but it's a choice every individual has to make.

Tomorrow is going to be a trainwreck... (http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/05/barack_obama_backs_michigan_de.html)

The MDP plan awards 69 Michigan delegates for Hillary Clinton and 59 for Obama.
...
Meanwhile, [Democratic National Committeeman Joel] Ferguson -- who's ironically set to argue the MDP's case Saturday to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, says Obama should get zero delegates here.

The Democratic National Committeeman and staunch Clinton supporter has broken with the MDP's delegate plan, even though he withdrew his own appeal to the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

In a letter to the committee, which meets Saturday, Ferguson calls the MDP's proposal "fatally flawed." He now seems to have taken on the role as the fox guarding the henhouse.

Ferguson argues Clinton should get 73 pledged delegates, while "uncommitted" would get 55. Here's the rub: Obama shouldn't get any Michigan delegates since he wasn't on the ballot, even though many of his supporters did vote uncommitted. Ferguson also said that if the whole slate can't be seated, pledged delegates should have half a vote and super delegates (like him) should have a full vote.

So much for "I'll go with what the state decides," her campaign will be deciding what the state wants in spite of itself. Meanwhile-
Barack Obama supports the Michigan Democratic Party's compromise.
...
The Illinois U.S. senator had wanted a 54-54 delegates split and Clinton originally wanted a 73-55 division.
Apparently the Clinton campaign's notion of compramise is that if you don't get what you want, ask for more...

A little bit of criticism of my own source-
Now Clintonistas have taken a harder line (more on that in a moment).
"Clintonistas" doesn't belong in a straight story any more than "Obamaniacs" or whatever word play is in vogue. So take the article with a grain of salt.

That's just it. You take it at face value and others analyze the information.
Yet your analysis was not factual, i.e. wrong dates, and stating that all polls were by SurveyUSA.

As Joc said, you invalidated your own source earlier in the thread.
I am surprised that you didn't catch my sarcasm.

Two women just sat on Fox News stating they speak for 10 million voters who voted for Hillary in saying the DNC split the party. They plan to fight on, with or without her. The Democratic Party will not win the Presidency in 2008, I can assure you of that. Thank you, Hilary Clinton, for officially wasting my first vote.
And providing those women with publicity to help them reach that goal is precisely why Fox put them on the air.

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?
Absolutely unbelieveable.

Most of the posters here have been quoting RCP averages for the past few months. Some of those averages have included polls that are 2 or 3 months old, and yet you are okay with that, unless of course I post a web site that has some stale polls.

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?
As I pointed out earlier, the single poll suggesting that Clinton would do better in NC than Obama looks like an outlier to me. All the other polls have posted Clinton much lower, and she lost the primary by an incredible margin of a couple hundred thousand votes.

Obama signs are still up all around the place. I should know, I just took a trip halfway across the state and then back.

IMO, Hillary Clinton has the best chance to save Elizabeth Dole (R)'s senate seat from Democratic coattails. That's the only thing she would probably accomplish in NC with her run - re-electing an incumbent Republican senator.

After looking at the RCP numbers, Obama is winning PA, OH, WI, and CA. Two of those states were either Toss ups or McCain would win.
RCP = junk science. :D

RCP = junk science. :D

Gee, YOU claiming something that doesn't support your lack-of-a-point is "bad science"? Who would have thought.

Gee, YOU claiming something that doesn't support your lack-of-a-point is "bad science"? Who would have thought.
It is junk science. It averages polls by other pollsters, even though it appears to allow some polls that are out in left field.

It also averages polls that may be months apart due to a lack of polls in a specific state.

I even went to the trouble of emailing them twice as to their methodology and I have yet to receive a reply.

Here is what I asked:

After looking at the polling data on your web site, I was wondering:

What methodology do you use to come up with your "average"?

Are there certain polls that you exclude, and if so why?

Are there any polls that you always exclude?

Should your "average" be considered accurate within a +/- system and if so, what is your +/- for the listed "average"?

Do you do any direct polling or do you do any interviewing of pollsters?
I received no reply.

RCP = junk science. :D

CH=*censored* :D

CH=*censored* :D

HRC = Cursed, old, ugly, spoiler, un-person hag who trained her supporters to behave like professional pseudo-victims.

It is junk science. It averages polls by other pollsters, even though it appears to allow some polls that are out in left field.

It also averages polls that may be months apart due to a lack of polls in a specific state.

I even went to the trouble of emailing them twice as to their methodology and I have yet to receive a reply.

Here is what I asked:


I received no reply.
Thats because all the answers are right there on the site.

"How do you come up with averages?" Really should have learned that in math. Pretty much only one way to do that.

"Are there polls you exclude?" We discussed this for pages, you whined about it because the poll favored your candidate so you were convinced that it was a conspiracy. ARG didn't have a transparent polling method that they could verify and a history of innacuracy so they didn't include them in the averages. The link that explained why was right there in the site.

The second question is the same as the first. They replace results from the same pollsters. And yes, sometimes they include polls that are rather out of date or polls that are clear outliers in their averages, something we've taken into account when looking at their averages even if it benefits our candidate.

There isn't a plus/minus on an average since an average is not a direct prediction, but rather an average of the predictions. The margin of error of any poll is anywhere from 2% to 5% generally speaking and anything within that should be taken into consideration.

They provide a link to the raw data of each poll they include, which gives you raw data, sampling method, questions asked, breakdown of the sample groups demographics, and often changes from the previous poll. Most of them also include questions about whatever thing is circling the news cycle and a percentage of those polled who thought it was a big deal or not.

As for your aversion to taking several polls into consideration-that's actually pretty common in statistics-outside the margin of error there's a thing called confidence level-the confidence that you didn't accidently sample the 600 people who are going to vote different than eveyone else. You cancel that concern two ways, by increasing your sample size and by taking more than one sample. If you have three in the same range and one that isn't, you can reasonably assume that the three are probably representative and the outlier a poor sample, which is why we've complained about the inclusion of outliers. However, averaging polls is not uncommon or 'unscientific,' it gives you an average of the samples to go by when looking at a breadth of polls. It's only flawed if you're looking for polls to be a crystal ball and not a finger in the wind.

Your inability to explore the site or understand statistics is not RCP's fault.

It is junk science. It averages polls by other pollsters, even though it appears to allow some polls that are out in left field.

It also averages polls that may be months apart due to a lack of polls in a specific state.

I even went to the trouble of emailing them twice as to their methodology and I have yet to receive a reply.

Here is what I asked:


I received no reply.

I'll accept that you are qualified to analyze polls in the way you attempt to when you answer how one calculates an outlier. Unless they know a pollster has issues, they display nad use a minimum number of polls to average. They don't exclude outliers.

Like all rational people, we take the polls they include with a grain of salt. Of course, I can actually calculate which polls are outliers. Something you've proven to not actually have an understanding of.

As has been pointed out, most people use the polls available and take into account mitigating factors. You cling to a poll when it agrees and suggest their polls are specious when they disagree, even if it's the same pollster, e.g. SurveyUSA, whose polls you reject about half the time, though you've NEVER explained the difference between those you accept and those you don't EXCEPT for whom they support.

It is junk science. It averages polls by other pollsters, even though it appears to allow some polls that are out in left field.

If there ever was proof you don't know what you're talking about. Heh.

CTOAN pretty much gave you an exact explanation of how silly your questions are and how silly your assertion that using other peoples data is unscientific is.

How wrong were the polls in the last election? And the one before that?

You're missing the point. I do not love any one polling agency. RCP is better than most. I repeat that my favorite metric is Vegas. What I'm saying is that this information is not very fruitful. You can't use the numbers to suit your needs. Anyhow, any more for Obama's short list? Biden, if I didn't say him already. Although, I think Obama is going to go with a Southern or Midwest candidate. VA's governor would be a wise pick up. I like him better than Webb actually. Any other suggestions.

Nice try CTOAN but those were updated before his two day old post. If you go to the main page (http://www.electoral-vote.com/), the site is updated on a daily basis, and in the upper right corner you can click on previous report (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May29.html) or next report (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/May31.html).

That is also why I asked him if he was on the same web site.

On each page is a listing as to what new polls have been added, and you can also scroll down to see the other polling data.

Since Liuzzo went out of his way to suggest that I was being "intellectually dishonest", I thought that the record should be set straight.

Your personal attacks aren't conducive to progressive debate.

At EST when I made this my last post it was yesterday. It is currently 00:13

So, two days before that, when I commented on your post it was the 27th. So here's the report from the 27th. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May27.html)

I'll point out many of the same things I have already shown.

SC is feb 28th.

Texas is May 7th

WY Feb 28th. OK as well. MD and DE the same. VT is the same. Illinois too.

Alabama is April 27th.

SD, ND April 3rd. So my analysis of your site at that point was correct. Are you tired of this yet? Hillary isn't going to win. That's another reason for the numbers on her v McCain being older as well. Barring some cataclysmic event, it's over.

WASHINGTON - Unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton, rival Barack Obama planned for the long haul.
ADVERTISEMENT

Clinton hinged her whole campaign on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday, while Obama's staff researched congressional districts in states with primaries that were months away. What they found were opportunities to win delegates, even in states they would eventually lose.

Obama's campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage — money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president.

"Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not aligned with either candidate. "They understood the nuances of it and approached it at a strategic level that the Clinton campaign did not."

Careful planning is one reason why Obama is emerging as the nominee as the Democratic Party prepares for its final three primaries, Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Attributing his success only to soaring speeches and prodigious fundraising ignores a critical part of contest.

Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries.

In a stark example, Obama's victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.

The research effort was headed by Jeffrey Berman, Obama's press-shy national director of delegate operations. Berman, who also tracked delegates in former Rep. Dick Gephardt's presidential bids, spent the better part of 2007 analyzing delegate opportunities for Obama.

"The whole Clinton campaign thought this would be like previous campaigns, a battle of momentum," said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "They thought she would be the only one would who could compete in such a momentous event as Super Tuesday."

Instead, Obama won a majority of the 23 Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5 and then spent the following two weeks racking up 11 straight victories, building an insurmountable lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

What made it especially hard for Clinton to catch up was that Obama understood and took advantage of a nominating system that emerged from the 1970s and '80s, when the party struggled to find a balance between party insiders and its rank-and-file voters.

Until the 1970s, the nominating process was controlled by party leaders, with ordinary citizens having little say. There were primaries and caucuses, but the delegates were often chosen behind closed doors, sometimes a full year before the national convention. That culminated in a 1968 national convention that didn't reflect the diversity of the party — racially or ideologically.

The fiasco of the 1968 convention in Chicago, where police battled anti-war protesters in the streets, led to calls for a more inclusive process.

One big change was awarding delegates proportionally, meaning you can finish second or third in a primary and still win delegates to the party's national convention. As long candidates get at least 15 percent of the vote, they are eligible for delegates.

The system enables strong second-place candidates to stay competitive and extend the race — as long as they don't run out of campaign money.

"For people who want a campaign to end quickly, proportional allocation is a bad system," Devine said. "For people who want a system that is fair and reflective of the voters, it's a much better system."

Another big change was the introduction of superdelegates, the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can vote for whomever they choose regardless of what happens in the primaries and caucuses.

Superdelegates were first seated at the 1984 convention. Much has been made of them this year because neither Obama nor Clinton can reach the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination without their support.

A more subtle change was the distribution of delegates within each state. As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system.

Under Democratic rules, congressional districts with a history of strong support for Democratic candidates are rewarded with more delegates than districts that are more Republican. Some districts packed with Democratic voters can have as many as eight or nine delegates up for grabs, while more Republican districts in the same state have three or four.

The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls.

"Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party," said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process.

"Once you had a black candidate you knew that he would be winning large numbers of delegates because of this phenomenon," said Kamarck, who is also a superdelegate supporting Clinton.

In states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton won the statewide vote but Obama won enough delegates to limit her gains. In states Obama carried, like Georgia and Virginia, he maximized the number of delegates he won.

"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."

You're missing the point. I do not love any one polling agency. RCP is better than most. I repeat that my favorite metric is Vegas. What I'm saying is that this information is not very fruitful. You can't use the numbers to suit your needs. Anyhow, any more for Obama's short list? Biden, if I didn't say him already. Although, I think Obama is going to go with a Southern or Midwest candidate. VA's governor would be a wise pick up. I like him better than Webb actually. Any other suggestions.

I'm more and more convinced that he's going to pick a Clinton supporter, he's not going to go with Clinton herself and suffer under the constant shadow of it being a 'co-presidency' with the Clintons (I believe, and this is just me, that as president Hillary would have been president, but as vice president, it's more or less the both of them. This would make Obama's presidency a giant hassle at best and perceived as a puppet presidency at worst. It would make the Cheney/Bush thing look autonomous by comparison.) But since he has to draw in the masses, I can see him picking a big name Clinton supporter.

This wouldn't happen because she increases his problems in a lot of ways instead of solves them, but thought just amused me-Pelosi. Of course, the 'liberal elite' thing would go from a drum beat to a marching band if she was picked, but it would completely knot those Clinton supporters that aren't going to give up. It's a woman who has earned her spot, but they don't like her because she thought that the rules were pretty much the rules, which of course didn't favor Clinton and her campaign of rule makers. It's a bad idea for a number of reasons, but that does amuse me. And, you know, she's the Representative from my area, so awesome.

You know what? I'll throw you the bone that poking around right now I can't see where Luizzo got his numbers in the way it seemed clear when I made the post. Since I can't find whatever it was I was seeing when I made it, I'm forced to admit it was a mistake.

As for your wounded little ego and 'progressive debate,' I'll get you a tissue. I've handled you with kid gloves and at one point was reduced to begging you, literally fucking begging you, for 'progressive' debate. The long and short of it is that while I don't know where Luizzo got his dates, many of those polls are months out of date, and in some cases compare states with polls that were not taken at the same time as polling companies stop polling Clinton numbers because it isn't relevant anymore or whatever. So while adhering to polls taken now as some sort of perfect gauge of November is flimsy, trying to hold the last bastion of the electability argument on a map made up such a fractured sample set is extremely flawed-whether Luizzo got those polling dates correct or not, that is the take away, the salient part of the debate. Quibbling the details isn't progressive, it's a back and forth of 'gotchas,' so you'll forgive me if I shrug off you lecture. You've spent more time in here quibbling bullshit and whining than progressing the debate and you'll forgive me if after months of this nonsense I don't have the patience to coddle your tender little feelings anymore.

I post later in the thread about the dates and show a backdated version congruent with what I said. Regardless, his argument fails for the reasons you stated above. I'm surprised it's taken you this long to grow weary of it. As you can see, the party has been long over for me.

Absolutely unbelieveable.

Most of the posters here have been quoting RCP averages for the past few months. Some of those averages have included polls that are 2 or 3 months old, and yet you are okay with that, unless of course I post a web site that has some stale polls.

How many motherFing times do I have to say it? RCP is better than most polls because it shows a trend. Now, my favorite place to look for the real nitty gritty is Vegas. The odds makers there are the best the world has to offer. The odds are Obama even, McCain 3/2, and Hillary 15/1. Are you a betting man CH?

I'm more and more convinced that he's going to pick a Clinton supporter, he's not going to go with Clinton herself and suffer under the constant shadow of it being a 'co-presidency' with the Clintons (I believe, and this is just me, that as president Hillary would have been president, but as vice president, it's more or less the both of them. This would make Obama's presidency a giant hassle at best and perceived as a puppet presidency at worst. It would make the Cheney/Bush thing look autonomous by comparison.) But since he has to draw in the masses, I can see him picking a big name Clinton supporter.

This wouldn't happen because she increases his problems in a lot of ways instead of solves them, but thought just amused me-Pelosi. Of course, the 'liberal elite' thing would go from a drum beat to a marching band if she was picked, but it would completely knot those Clinton supporters that aren't going to give up. It's a woman who has earned her spot, but they don't like her because she thought that the rules were pretty much the rules, which of course didn't favor Clinton and her campaign of rule makers. It's a bad idea for a number of reasons, but that does amuse me. And, you know, she's the Representative from my area, so awesome.

Interesting ideas. As I stated before, it is 00:37 now and I am in desperate need of some sleep. Until tomorrow.

I'm going to say Kathleen Sebelius, or Janet Nepolitano, if we're going for female VP choices. Either one of those would be fantastic.

Failing that, my first choice is, as it has been for some time now, Bill Richardson, with Wesley Clark second.

I'm going to say Kathleen Sebelius, or Janet Nepolitano, if we're going for female VP choices. Either one of those would be fantastic.

Failing that, my first choice is, as it has been for some time now, Bill Richardson, with Wesley Clark second.

I'm a big fan of Clark, but given what the Clinton campaign is doing, I think he's going to have to pick a woman.

I'm all for a woman VP or President, of course, but I'd rather she was chosen for her merits, not the type of equipment she has.

I'm a big fan of Clark, but given what the Clinton campaign is doing, I think he's going to have to pick a woman.

I'm all for a woman VP or President, of course, but I'd rather she was chosen for her merits, not the type of equipment she has.

Oh, definitely. And the more I look at Sebelius, I really like her.

Believe me, even if he has to pick a woman for the sake of party unity, I want him to pick the best woman. From what I can see, it's Sebelius. (I like Nepo too though. It's really up to Senator Obama.)

I'm going to say Kathleen Sebelius, or Janet Nepolitano, if we're going for female VP choices. Either one of those would be fantastic.

Failing that, my first choice is, as it has been for some time now, Bill Richardson, with Wesley Clark second.

Richardson was my first choice, but before I could look that deep into him it was clear he wasn't going to stand a chance.

I actually like the idea of a split-party ticket. Then again, I'm not a party loyalist. I'm not entirely certain how it would play with Dems.

I've always rather liked the idea of Colin Powell as his running mate. I don't think Powell is as damaged by his association with Bush, since he was so obviously disgusted with administration and got the heck out. And he'd bring in the foreign policy and diplomatic experience that Republicans will argue Obama is missing.

That's probably a pipe-dream, though.

Indeed. I like CP, but my reading of the situation on the ground is that he was significantly damaged by his part in the lead up to Iraq.

Chuck Hagel is the one I like.

Depends on how you define racist. The manipulator is using the racism of others to her own ends - even though she knows better personally. The true believer racist actually believes the crap she spouts.

In my mind, the former is more evil.

I understand your point, but to me racism is racism, regardless of the motives.

So, let me see if I have this straight.

[QUOTE=Aardweasels]First, the Obama supporters call Hillary supporters racist.

I for one have been quite careful to only call the campaign and certain participants in it racist, and only when they demonstrably have been.

Predicating one's campaign on the idea that your opponent is inferior because he's the black candidate and one's own candidate is supperior because she's white, is racist.

Manipulating photos in camapaign ads to darken your opponents skin tone is racist.

Distributing photos of your opponent in "ethnic garb" is racist.

Saying "My opponent is Christian as far as I know." in a race as ethnically and religiously charged as this one, especially after having distributed ethnically charged photos suggesting your opponent is religiously and ethnically muslim, is racist.

However, exit polling in several states has suggested that race palyed a part in Clinton voters choices.

Then they call us stupid.

Evidence?

Then they tell us it doesn't matter what our vote is, Hillary should step aside.

Err... the Clinton campaign is the one that has stated my support of Obama in the Iowa Caucus didn't count as part of the popular support for Obama.

Then they call us stupid again, while implying we're not only stupid, we're stupidly racist.

:rolleyes:

And now we're supposed to smile and vote for Obama?

No. Your should quit making exquses and realise your candidate lost fair and square.

Don't think so. I'll be voting for Ralph Nadar come November. I expect a lot of other Hillary supporters will be doing the same.

You do realise that if you go down that route you're screwing yourself in the long run, don't you?

If the Hillary supporters actually do have a negative effect on the outcome of Obama's race, you'll have lost a whole generation over a percieved slight.

To quote, "I don't think we represent all 17 million supporters. but maybe like 10 million. I mean, we put up the site just a few days ago, and went through, uh, it went through its second revolution in hits."

Not that the hits comment makes any sense, but still.

LOL

I'm a big fan of Clark, but given what the Clinton campaign is doing, I think he's going to have to pick a woman.

I'm all for a woman VP or President, of course, but I'd rather she was chosen for her merits, not the type of equipment she has.

Indeed. The nasty "we was robbed!!!" campaign coming out of the Clinton camp may unfortunately make being white female a criterion for being the VP candidate. If so, that will be a step backwards from the race and gender blind administration I want to see.

Oh, definitely. And the more I look at Sebelius, I really like her.

Believe me, even if he has to pick a woman for the sake of party unity, I want him to pick the best woman. From what I can see, it's Sebelius. (I like Nepo too though. It's really up to Senator Obama.)

I'm liking her more and more. To the point where if she'd been in HRCs place, I'd have had a hard choice this time around.

Richardson was my first choice, but before I could look that deep into him it was clear he wasn't going to stand a chance.

I've said my piece on that piece before. Suffice it to say I don't want that man on the ticket period.

At EST when I made this my last post it was yesterday. It is currently 00:13

So, two days before that, when I commented on your post it was the 27th. So here's the report from the 27th. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May27.html)

I'll point out many of the same things I have already shown.

SC is feb 28th.

Texas is May 7th

WY Feb 28th. OK as well. MD and DE the same. VT is the same. Illinois too.

Alabama is April 27th.

SD, ND April 3rd. So my analysis of your site at that point was correct. Are you tired of this yet? Hillary isn't going to win. That's another reason for the numbers on her v McCain being older as well. Barring some cataclysmic event, it's over.
Actually, your analysis was incorrect. You misrepresented data and dates (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13729780&postcount=1485), falsely claimed that "It's also all based on Survey USA" and then you had the temerity to suggest that it was I that was being intellectually dishonest. Your post above does not correct the fact that your analysis was incorrect, and that your insult was unnecessary.

CanuckHeaven, out of curiosity, are you happening to get any of your arguing points and whatnot from some specific source?

I ask because my father keeps coming up with the same exact(and I do mean exact, barring specific word choices) arguments and I keep trying to shoot them down. (Trying being the key word because my father is an extremely stubborn man. A good thing for letting him keep a job, but a bad thing for everything else.)

I wish this dude from Michigan would lower is mic so I wouldn't have to hear his breathing. He actually raised so it was worse. I never get this, these guys spend most of their time in front of these mics, some awareness of them you'd think is a professional thing to have...(watching the rules meeting...)

Earlier I made a comment about the ironicly (ironic because they claim insult) insulting claims of the Clinton campaign/backers who cry foul, two articles compared...

First- (http://www.newsweek.com/id/139263/page/1)
the nomination fight is resolved, it must be seen as fair by supporters of the two candidates, who have run an excruciatingly close race.

If that's the goal, it doesn't help that a group of women plan on protesting outside the hotel Saturday where the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee is meeting. These women are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. But their complaint, that Hillary Clinton may be denied the nomination because she's the victim of sexism, doesn't hold water.

Sexism by whom? By the press? By Barack Obama? To be sure, there have been sexist comments. Some women are still smarting over the time when Obama pulled out Clinton's chair after a debate, seeing it as chauvinist as opposed to gentlemanly. But highlighting sexism undercuts Clinton's argument that she is the more electable of the two candidates. How can she be more electable if sexism is this strong within the Democratic primaries? What would happen in November? If she's the candidate, would hordes of men see the light?
An interesting note-if she couldn't overcome the 'sexism' of the democratic party how is she supposed to overcome the sexism of the general election? But that's a side issue. Normally I would say pulling a chair out after a debate is about the weakest example of sexism, but then Ferraro claimed 'brushing dust off his shoulders' was sexist, so...

But maybe the case that sex wasn't enough of an issue-
[Professor Karen] O'Connor founded the Institute of Women and Politics at AU. As a woman over 50 who has devoted her professional life to cultivating women leaders and looking ahead to the day when she might see a woman president, she learned a hard truth: that for these women, youth trumps gender. "I don't vote for a woman just because she's a woman," a former student told O'Connor. "I do," O'Connor responded, explaining that Clinton and Obama are "identical" on the issues. "This is gender versus race." O'Connor has been quoted saying it will be generations, plural, before another woman will be positioned as the heir apparent the way Clinton was at the outset of the race.

But then, as we've been saying-

Blaming gender bias may help some women vent about an outcome they didn't want, but there are more mundane reasons for what looks like a failed nomination fight. If Clinton had not voted for the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to wage war, the door would not have swung open for Obama to enter the race. His antiwar stance gave him a moral claim on which to stake his candidacy. Secondly, the Clinton campaign's decision to not aggressively contest the caucus states allowed Obama to build up a lead in delegates that Clinton was never able to overcome. Now Clinton supporters are arguing that caucuses are undemocratic, and if only the Democrats had the same system as the Republicans, winner-take-all in the big primary states, Hillary would be the nominee.

The sense of grievance that permeates the Clinton campaign is out of proportion to reality. Women seethe at the way Hillary's cleavage became news when a Washington Post style writer, a woman, did a feature on a lower-cut-than usual top she wore on the Senate floor. Silly and sexist, yes, but what if Bill Clinton hadn't waded into the South Carolina primary with remarks that seemed to conjoin Obama with Jesse Jackson? Would that have made a difference? Life isn't fair, but don't cry for Hillary. She's proved herself more than worthy to win; now she's got to muster the grace to lose.

She misread the zeitgeist, she misread the map, if she wants to compare her candidacy to Rocky, she was Apollo Creed, except that she lost.

But now the narrative it isn't that she didn't run an effective campaign, not that she got out maneuvered, not that a majority of the electorate made an independent decision, oh no-it's all a conspiracy-

Second (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/boy-boys-girls-2056513-women-obama)
Democratic women are feeling metaphorically battered by the Obama campaign. "Healing The Wounds Of Democrats' Sexism," as the Boston Globe headline put it, will not be easy. Geraldine Ferraro is among many prominent Democrat ladies putting up their own money for a study from the Shorenstein Center at Harvard to determine whether Sen. Clinton's presidential hopes fell victim to party and media sexism.

How else to explain why their gal got clobbered by a pretty boy with a resume you could print on the back of his driver's license, a Rolodex apparently limited to neosegregationist race-baiters, campus Marxist terrorists and indicted fraudsters, and a rhetorical surefootedness that makes Dan Quayle look like Socrates.

"On this Memorial Day," said Barack Obama last Monday, "as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes – and I see many of them in the audience here today."

Hey, why not? In Obama's Cook County, Ill., many fallen heroes from the Spanish-American War still show up in the voting booths come November. It's not unreasonable for some of them to turn up at an Obama campaign rally, too.
Seriously? We're going to compare a speaker who rivals recent champs like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan to Dan Quayle? Unfavorably? Obama is a black radical! It can only be sexism that got this black radical to win the nomination! You have to hate women to like the candidate we painted with this brush here.

And then they want to say that they're the ones being insulted.

Bull-fucking-shit.

This is the kind of thing that has to be humored (I don't quote the rest of the article because it goes on to some ramble about aborted female offspring in eastern cultures in a way that I don't understand how it relates).

Sidenote-Ouch, Ickes just got slapped by the dude from Michigan.

Further, the scapegoats keep breading, and now MoveOn.org is one of them-
While the campaign has been blasting the media for weeks for prematurely calling the race for Obama, President Clinton has added a new entry to his enemy list: MoveOn.org, the anti-war group that endorsed Obama and that, through its political action committee, has raised millions for Democratic candidates, money the Clintons apparently believe has unfairly purchased superdelegate support for Obama.

Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson offered another interpretation, telling Politico that “the president was referring to efforts online to pressure superdelegates in support of Sen. Obama,” pointing to a petition the group circulated in February asking superdelegates to “let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice.”

Those bastards at MoveOn, asking that the primary results be ratified. And of course the purse strings, it's not like Clinton supporters would threaten purse strings when the Speaker of the House said that the primary should be ratified, you know, except that they did. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/pelosi-letter-writers-are-mega-million-donors/)

So is the argument that their purse strings were trumped?

Insult while claiming insult, disenfranchise while claiming disenfranchisement, threaten while decrying threats, on and on. And all the while having to be placated like a spoiled child who isn't getting their toy at the department store because the parent doesn't want to make a scene. Pathetic.

snip
I totally agree on every level. In fact, I wrote an e-mail to the group that is sponsoring the "Clinton was the victim of sexism" argument: WomenCount PAC, telling them that I was disgusted that they call themselves feminists in the same breath that they call for special treatment of Hillary just because she's a woman.

Can Hillary recover from all of this shit? There's no doubt in my mind, afte reading her biography by Carl Bernstein (A Woman in Charge), that she ran this year to redeem her and her husband's legacy, and accomplish the goals that they failed to meet during Bill's tenure. Now, with her reputation so damaged, how can she possibly redeem her legacy when it's been further soiled?

Snip.

I'm so glad you're on my team, CTOAN...

I totally agree on every level. In fact, I wrote an e-mail to the group that is sponsoring the "Clinton was the victim of sexism" argument: WomenCount PAC, telling them that I was disgusted that they call themselves feminists in the same breath that they call for special treatment of Hillary just because she's a woman.

Can Hillary recover from all of this shit? There's no doubt in my mind, afte reading her biography by Carl Bernstein (A Woman in Charge), that she ran this year to redeem her and her husband's legacy, and accomplish the goals that they failed to meet during Bill's tenure. Now, with her reputation so damaged, how can she possibly redeem her legacy when it's been further soiled?

It depends largely on the time between now and Nov. 5th, really. The Clinton's have a teflon aspect to them as well, they'll be diminished but always an important part of the party.

Irrelevant side note-goddamn it, this guy had the mic adjusted so it wouldn't pick up his breath and then he adjusted it so it would...what's with these people, dammit...(I'm the only one watching this, aren't I? The rules meeting?)

I watching it. And, I'm sorry, those people on the committee who are saying the "integrity of the Michigan election" make me sick. There is no integrity. The rules committee ensured this when they told people who were in an OPEN primary that one side's results would not count. To pretend like the results represent any kind of "will of the voter" denies the will of all of the voters who didn't get what THEY wanted, a relevant primary.

Seriously, if this damages anyone, I greatly hope it damages the members of the rules committed that stripped all the votes. I greatly hope it damages the members of the Michigan congress that moved up the vote. I greatly hope that it damages the members of the Flordia congress that moved up the vote. I greatly hope the blame ends up squarely where it belongs.

(I liked this bit "I agree that we should have rules, but I don't agree we should have rules that disenfranchise voters.")

Woah, did you hear the reaction when the former governor said he supported the early election? Dead silence. No cheering. That fell flat.

Woah, did you hear the reaction when the former governor said he supported the early election? Dead silence. No cheering. That fell flat.

When I tuned in there was a dude making Michigan's case for moving up and he didn't really get much of a reaction, I wasn't as aware of the crowd until the campaign people started commenting.

i find it impossible to respect the opinion of a man who is disingenuous in his interpretation of the facts.

"Well those other candidates didnt have to remove their names, it was their CHOICE"

"the uncommitted delegates would probably all be obama supporters ....but they might switch back and forth by august"

at least that last guy was trying to interpret the rules... even though he seemed to want it both ways michigan with delegates that the rules dont allow them to have AND not altering the results of the primary to allocate some delegates to obama (which the rules dont allow)

When I tuned in there was a dude making Michigan's case for moving up and he didn't really get much of a reaction, I wasn't as aware of the crowd until the campaign people started commenting.

I'm talking about the Clinton campaign's spokesman.

By the by, I love what that guy was just saying. He made a great argument about how stupid it is to compare this to Florida in 2000, where people were turned away from the polls, where people were told the election counted but the results weren't, where people were scrubbed for having names that were "similar" to a felons.

Microphone awareness, dammit!!! Gah!!!

What the fuck, did he just say that no one said the Michigan vote wouldn't count??!?!!? What dimension did this guy come from?

And now for the moment where no one looks at me the same...

Is it weird that I think Donna Brazile is kinda sexy? Just from interviews where she's being casual...sexy...and what she's doing now...

Microphone awareness, dammit!!! Gah!!!

What the fuck, did he just say that no one said the Michigan vote wouldn't count??!?!!? What dimension did this guy come from?

yes that is what he said.

disingenuous

same as him suggesting that in january with no campaigning (except for kucinich) the michigan voters were fully informed about all the candidates--which we know is wrong since all the states after that had considerable shifts in the polls as the candidates campaigned in their states.

And now for the moment where no one looks at me the same...

Is it weird that I think Donna Brazile is kinda sexy? Just from interviews where she's being casual...sexy...and what she's doing now...

she has a polish that the rest of the committee members and attendees dont have. must be because she has been on TV a lot lately so she's been working on it.

Suck it Ickes!



Sorry, really don't like that guy.

EDIT: Totally going to eat lunch when they do. And on the West Coast it's just the right time!

Where is everyone watching this?

Where is everyone watching this?

Right now they're at lunch. I started watching on CNN but disliked the breaks for Wolf Blitzer so I switched to C-SPAN who is now re-running earlier parts while the committee eats.

Right now they're at lunch. I started watching on CNN but disliked the breaks for Wolf Blitzer so I switched to C-SPAN who is now re-running earlier parts while the committee eats.

Thanks.

Thanks.

You just missed a quality bitch slap to Harold Ickes in the replay...I wish I had Tivo so I could get it right on. After the dude goes on about how Obama is fine with the 50% straight as it stands vote in Florida, pointing out that it's as much as Clinton won in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Ickes asked something like "Do you agree with the concept of fair compliance (or some other such term)." He scoffed, "Fair complaince? I'm afraid you'll have to educate me on the concept of fair compliance." Not only did Ickes not respond, he got up and walked away.

He also nailed Alice Huffman about why Florida shouldn't get a full vote, "Why didn't you ask that last year?" Damn skippy. Robert Wexler, from Florida.

You just missed a quality bitch slap to Harold Ickes in the replay...I wish I had Tivo so I could get it right on. After the dude goes on about how Obama is fine with the 50% straight as it stands vote in Florida, pointing out that it's as much as Clinton won in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Ickes asked something like "Do you agree with the concept of fair compliance (or some other such term)." He scoffed, "Fair complaince? I'm afraid you'll have to educate me on the concept of fair compliance." Not only did Ickes not respond, he got up and walked away.

He also nailed Alice Huffman about why Florida shouldn't get a full vote, "Why didn't you ask that last year?" Damn skippy. Robert Wexler, from Florida.

http://www.c-span.org/

Check the "oral arguments" and you can whats happened thus far on Real Player.

CanuckHeaven, out of curiosity, are you happening to get any of your arguing points and whatnot from some specific source?
The source of debate for me is right here at NSG. Perhaps your father has an account? :cool:

I ask because my father keeps coming up with the same exact(and I do mean exact, barring specific word choices) arguments and I keep trying to shoot them down. (Trying being the key word because my father is an extremely stubborn man. A good thing for letting him keep a job, but a bad thing for everything else.)
I am glad your father is a stubborn man......perhaps you should take heed of what he is telling you? :D

I am glad your father is a stubborn man......perhaps you should take heed of what he is telling you? :D

Or perhaps you should.

yes that is what he said.

disingenuous

same as him suggesting that in january with no campaigning (except for kucinich) the michigan voters were fully informed about all the candidates--which we know is wrong since all the states after that had considerable shifts in the polls as the candidates campaigned in their states.

Did you catch the same dude essentially saying that since Clinton said that "It's clear that the vote in Michigan won't matter [parafphrased]" in New Hampshire and not Michigan it 'doesn't count'...they're coming up with their special rules in the like it was a playground game of tag...

Did you catch the same dude essentially saying that since Clinton said that "It's clear that the vote in Michigan won't matter [parafphrased]" in New Hampshire and not Michigan it 'doesn't count'...they're coming up with their special rules in the like it was a playground game of tag...

"Nu uh, I was on the grass. The grass is safe territory."

Or perhaps you should.
Say what? I haven't got a clue what you mean by that.

Did you catch the same dude essentially saying that since Clinton said that "It's clear that the vote in Michigan won't matter [parafphrased]" in New Hampshire and not Michigan it 'doesn't count'...they're coming up with their special rules in the like it was a playground game of tag...

yeah that was goofy. "i didnt hear it so it didnt count"

I am glad your father is a stubborn man......perhaps you should take heed of what he is telling you? :D

Considering he outright said at one point that Senator Clinton should get it regardless of the rules and he has constantly derided Senator Obama's accomplishments and enjoys referring to him as a neophyte, I don't think so.

The irritating thing about all of this is that Dad'll come around to my viewpoint within a couple weeks of Obama being named the nominee, and he's said that out loud too. So we just argue for the hell of it. Really, I get along quite well with my Dad...he's just dumb sometimes.

This would all seem pretty damn trivial if something happened to this shuttle at launch...(not hoping for that at all, just sayin'...)

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.
How about that is May 6....this year. If you had scrolled down, and checked under Georgia, you would have realized that.

So much for your analysis. :eek:

Considering he outright said at one point that Senator Clinton should get it regardless of the rules and he has constantly derided Senator Obama's accomplishments and enjoys referring to him as a neophyte, I don't think so.
Well then....your father is not using "the same exact(and I do mean exact, barring specific word choices) arguments" as myself.

The irritating thing about all of this is that Dad'll come around to my viewpoint within a couple weeks of Obama being named the nominee, and he's said that out loud too. So we just argue for the hell of it. Really, I get along quite well with my Dad...he's just dumb sometimes.
Yeah, parents are like that. :rolleyes:

Say what? I haven't got a clue what you mean by that.

And I don't feel like enlightening you. Ah well.

Well then....your father is not using "the same exact(and I do mean exact, barring specific word choices) arguments" as myself.

He did it in addition to the other arguments, mind.


Yeah, parents are like that. :rolleyes:
Sorry...by dumb I meant irrational and stubborn in his beliefs. Of course, I'm like that too many a time.

Seatoan: So what's happening in the debate now? I'm working on something at my computer so I kinda can't watch it.

He did it in addition to the other arguments, mind.


Sorry...by dumb I meant irrational and stubborn in his beliefs. Of course, I'm like that too many a time.

Seatoan: So what's happening in the debate now? I'm working on something at my computer so I kinda can't watch it.

It took me a second to realize you were talking to me. They haven't come back from lunch yet, even though they were scheduled to. So now they're replaying Levin who is making the case that Michigan had a right to move its primary. It's kind of bullshit, but it makes a better case than previous "I wanna." It doesn't make the case that they should be awarded no penalty. Apparently they tried this in 2004 and got an agreement to move some other states ahead but I guess since they weren't one of them they got butt hurt and moved up again.

It took me a second to realize you were talking to me. They haven't come back from lunch yet, even though they were scheduled to. So now they're replaying Levin who is making the case that Michigan had a right to move its primary. It's kind of bullshit, but it makes a better case than previous "I wanna." It doesn't make the case that they should be awarded no penalty. Apparently they tried this in 2004 and got an agreement to move some other states ahead but I guess since they weren't one of them they got butt hurt and moved up again.

Well, not surprised about the lunch. They have to eat quite a lot to fuel that hot air, you know.

Seriously though, I still don't agree that the current way the primaries are conducted is good at all. I remember someone suggesting a set of "Super Tuesdays" with just a few primaries before they start up, and I agree with that idea, since it would keep things flowing more. If this primary is any indication, the Democrats will have trouble deciding their candidate quickly in the future.

Well, not surprised about the lunch. They have to eat quite a lot to fuel that hot air, you know.

Seriously though, I still don't agree that the current way the primaries are conducted is good at all. I remember someone suggesting a set of "Super Tuesdays" with just a few primaries before they start up, and I agree with that idea, since it would keep things flowing more. If this primary is any indication, the Democrats will have trouble deciding their candidate quickly in the future.

The problem is that in a way that sort of shifts an early influence on the candidates from those 'privelidged' states to essentially saying that California, New York, and Florida get to decide. Small states that are hard to campaign in would be skipped for airport stops in us big states. It's hard to find a balance. Even harder if states start throwing elbows.

The problem is that in a way that sort of shifts an early influence on the candidates from those 'privelidged' states to essentially saying that California, New York, and Florida get to decide. Small states that are hard to campaign in would be skipped for airport stops in us big states. It's hard to find a balance. Even harder if states start throwing elbows.

Nuh-uh. We know that's not true, as evidenced by Obama's campaign. There simply aren't enough delegates to be able to do that.

Besides, so long as you kept those states from being all on the same day, primary wise, you'd dodge that little bullet anyway.

Nuh-uh. We know that's not true, as evidenced by Obama's campaign. There simply aren't enough delegates to be able to do that.

Besides, so long as you kept those states from being all on the same day, primary wise, you'd dodge that little bullet anyway.

Well lets be honest, he mitigated Super Tuesday, and initially it was thought that Clinton won that. It wasn't until a string of smaller primaries that he was able to break out as he was able to do the grassroots thing.

Incidentally, going back to something I said earlier, this (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2008/05/ickes_and_fair_reflection.html) is what Ickes was talking about before the dude scoffed at him and Ickes got up and walked away.

Well lets be honest, he mitigated Super Tuesday, and initially it was thought that Clinton won that. It wasn't until a string of smaller primaries that he was able to break out as he was able to do the grassroots thing.
True...true...but he still managed to rack up a very large number of delegates from them, which means those large states aren't as all-important as one might think at first.

And that's a big no on 100% for Florida.

And the pin pulled, the crowd chants 'Denver, Denver, Denver'.

She is no longer in control of the train...

I'm a big fan of Clark, but given what the Clinton campaign is doing, I think he's going to have to pick a woman.

I'm all for a woman VP or President, of course, but I'd rather she was chosen for her merits, not the type of equipment she has.

If you pick anyone from the Hillary camp it would have to be Clark.

And that's a big no on 100% for Florida.

And the pin pulled, the crowd chants 'Denver, Denver, Denver'.

She is no longer in control of the train...
Uh-oh...

Actually, your analysis was incorrect. You misrepresented data and dates (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13729780&postcount=1485), falsely claimed that "It's also all based on Survey USA" and then you had the temerity to suggest that it was I that was being intellectually dishonest. Your post above does not correct the fact that your analysis was incorrect, and that your insult was unnecessary.

So Feb 28th? I went back and showed you the report. The only thing you may have is that I said "All SurveyUSA" It was only about 75% SurveyUSA. Sprinkle so Rassmussum in there for good measure. So my charge still stands to you. Clinton can have all the numbers (and she doesn't) and she still isn't winning the nomination.CH's one sight withstanding, it's looking up for Obama. A Great VP choice and woohoo.

Huffman practically had to beg for the crowd to be reasonable. And they don't agree.

Florida gets half.

Ickes is being disingenuous again.

Will someone please silence him?

Ickes is being disingenuous again.

Will someone please silence him?

I'll stuff you in his mouth. That oughta shut both of you up.

How about that is May 6....this year. If you had scrolled down, and checked under Georgia, you would have realized that.

So much for your analysis. :eek:

Oh, May 6th. Now I get it? Anyhow, the site is still limited. Using polls from the 27th there were many states whose last poll was F#cking February 28th. Pardon me with mixing up a date. Do you think Feb 28th was a valid date that should be taken seriously? It's June, so even early May limits what we can learn from these poll results. My favorite analysis is Vegas. None of this changes the fact that she is not going to be the nominee. The power sharing of a Clinton Obama ticket will not work. She's done.

"Reserve her right to take this to the convention."

ticktickticktick

Ickes is being disingenuous again.

Will someone please silence him?

"Blah, blah, blah, fair reflection...Blah, blah, blah, don't count a single vote for Obama in Michigan because 'uncommitted is a protected status...This body substitutes for the will of the voters..."

I really, really want to beat the living fuck out of him. I think his words speak for himeslf. How dare he? How fucking dare he? I respect Clinton doing what she can to win within the rules -- the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want -- but making these sorts of comments about how unfair it is for the "elected body to substitute for the will of the voters?" ARE YOU SHITTING ME?! Claiming that Clinton should receive all of her votes from Michigan but Obama none because "uncommitted" voters are a "protected status?"

And as I type this, Ickes just announced that Clinton wants to take this to the credentials committee.

Never again will I defend Hillary Clinton to anyone on any issue. Never again will I cut her any slack. She is a selfish, dispicable person who only cares about herself, and cares nothing about the future of her party and the issues that she's claimed to fight for.

Fuck you, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Fuck you, Harold Ickes.

/rant

P.S. I apologize for the rant, but my rage just boiled over.

I'll stuff you in his mouth. That oughta shut both of you up.

I get to speak. He doesn't.

"Blah, blah, blah, fair reflection...Blah, blah, blah, don't count a single vote for Obama in Michigan because 'uncommitted is a protected status...This body substitutes for the will of the voters..."

I really, really want to beat the living fuck out of him. I think his words speak for himeslf. How dare he? How fucking dare he? I respect Clinton doing what she can to win within the rules -- the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want -- but making these sorts of comments about how unfair it is for the "elected body to substitute for the will of the voters?" ARE YOU SHITTING ME?! Claiming that Clinton should receive all of her votes from Michigan but Obama none because "uncommitted" voters are a "protected status?"

And as I type this, Ickes just announced that Clinton wants to take this to the credentials committee.

Never again will I defend Hillary Clinton to anyone on any issue. Never again will I cut her any slack. She is a selfish, dispicable person who only cares about herself, and cares nothing about the future of her party and the issues that she's claimed to fight for.

Fuck you, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Fuck you, Harold Ickes.

/rant

P.S. I apologize for the rant, but my rage just boiled over.

Amen.

"Blah, blah, blah, fair reflection...Blah, blah, blah, don't count a single vote for Obama in Michigan because 'uncommitted is a protected status...This body substitutes for the will of the voters..."

I really, really want to beat the living fuck out of him. I think his words speak for himeslf. How dare he? How fucking dare he? I respect Clinton doing what she can to win within the rules -- the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want -- but making these sorts of comments about how unfair it is for the "elected body to substitute for the will of the voters?" ARE YOU SHITTING ME?! Claiming that Clinton should receive all of her votes from Michigan but Obama none because "uncommitted" voters are a "protected status?"

And as I type this, Ickes just announced that Clinton wants to take this to the credentials committee.

Never again will I defend Hillary Clinton to anyone on any issue. Never again will I cut her any slack. She is a selfish, dispicable person who only cares about herself, and cares nothing about the future of her party and the issues that she's claimed to fight for.

Fuck you, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Fuck you, Harold Ickes.

/rant

P.S. I apologize for the rant, but my rage just boiled over.

lol

i was swearing in a similar fashion out loud for my husband and son to hear.

it pisses me off to hear him talk about rules when the freaking rules would have her get ZERO delegates from either state.

Well, not surprised about the lunch. They have to eat quite a lot to fuel that hot air, you know.

Seriously though, I still don't agree that the current way the primaries are conducted is good at all. I remember someone suggesting a set of "Super Tuesdays" with just a few primaries before they start up, and I agree with that idea, since it would keep things flowing more. If this primary is any indication, the Democrats will have trouble deciding their candidate quickly in the future.

Twas me, my friend. Though I think there may have been others.

The problem is that in a way that sort of shifts an early influence on the candidates from those 'privelidged' states to essentially saying that California, New York, and Florida get to decide. Small states that are hard to campaign in would be skipped for airport stops in us big states. It's hard to find a balance. Even harder if states start throwing elbows.

Not if they aren't the early states. You allow a couple of early states, little one, and then a series of super Tuesdays with the states moving around each year. Put all the big states together in one Tuesday so one big state doesn't dominated each Tuesday.

Michigan gets half, and Obama gets the votes that went uncommitted.

Denver chants again, chaos.

ticktickticktick.

Nuh-uh. We know that's not true, as evidenced by Obama's campaign. There simply aren't enough delegates to be able to do that.

Besides, so long as you kept those states from being all on the same day, primary wise, you'd dodge that little bullet anyway.

I think it's the opposite. I think they SHOULd be on the same day, because otherwise California would represent such a large number of delegates taht they would get one super Tuesday's focus and New York another, etc.

I get to speak. He doesn't.

Aww...

Twas me, my friend. Though I think there may have been others.

Ah, right, right. And you're right about putting all the big states on one day...I didn't think that through very well.

Aww...

It's for a reason: Ickes wants to shut the people that voted for Obama in Michigan up. So he doesn't get to speak.

Michigan gets half, and Obama gets the votes that went uncommitted.

Denver chants again, chaos.

ticktickticktick.

Right. I'd better hide anything fragile.

It's for a reason: Ickes wants to shut the people that voted for Obama in Michigan up. So he doesn't get to speak.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know...

Michigan gets half, and Obama gets the votes that went uncommitted.

Denver chants again, chaos.

ticktickticktick.

"You better fix this problem we created."

You know what kills me... they act like they cannot BELIEVE that anyone would suggest Obama would get any delegates from Michigan. That was initially what THEY were suggesting. I'm glad that several mentioned that thing people call "cheating". It's not just about the candidates either. It's sad that they are willing to disenfranchise EVERY Obama voter in Michigan while enfranchising Clinton voters.

Michigan gets half, and Obama gets the votes that went uncommitted.

Denver chants again, chaos.

ticktickticktick.
Seen it as well, idiocy ofcourse. Although I definatly think that everyone should have the opertunity to vote, rules are rules. This decision is just raping the voter, this doesn't even make sense. Who says all want-to-vote-Obama voters voted uncommitted, and some just didn't think "O well, I'll just go with Hilary then." and who says all uncomitted voters are for Obama, hell: they're uncommitted!
This decision just fails.

Seen it as well, idiocy ofcourse. Although I definatly think that everyone should have the opertunity to vote, rules are rules. This decision is just raping the voter, this doesn't even make sense. Who says all want-to-vote-Obama voters voted uncommitted, and some just didn't think "O well, I'll just go with Hilary then." and who says all uncomitted voters are for Obama, hell: they're uncommitted!
This decision just fails.

Oh, dear. So what do you propose? That NONE of Obama's supporters are represented. They were told it didn't count. You know was among those who said it didn't count? Hillary and nearly her entire campaign. There was NO election. There was NO fair way to represent an election that didn't happen. Elections include telling the voter that there is a legal election and allowing campaigning. Neither of those happened.

Oh, dear. So what do you propose? That NONE of Obama's supporters are represented.

That's like an election in Zimbabwe!




Wait. . .

That's like an election in Zimbabwe!




Wait. . .

Zing! :D

Zing! :D

It makes me wonder; if I want to go into politics, I'm going to be the most wisecracking politician ever. :D

Oh, dear. So what do you propose? That NONE of Obama's supporters are represented. They were told it didn't count. You know was among those who said it didn't count? Hillary and nearly her entire campaign. There was NO election. There was NO fair way to represent an election that didn't happen. Elections include telling the voter that there is a legal election and allowing campaigning. Neither of those happened.
Hell no, it's simple: they did not vote by the rules, they knew the rules, but still broke them. Result: there vote doesn't count. What they did now however, is just a travesty of democracy. I would prefer to look for the options of a re-primary in those 2 states.

According to the BBC, Obama's delegate total was 1,984 and Clinton's was 1,782.

With half seating, how many delegates are required again? I know there was 2,209 mentioned at some point, but that was for full seating, right?

So...

2,029...

Obama got 59
Clinton got 69

From Michigan

and

Obama got 67
Clinton got 105

From Florida.

With halving, that makes a complete total of:

Obama got 92.5 (93?)
Clinton got 121.5 (122?)

Delegates needed went from 2,029 to 2,154

Obama's new delegate total:
2,076.5

Clinton's new delegate total:
1,903.5

2,118 is now the magic number.

Hell no, it's simple: they did not vote by the rules, they knew the rules, but still broke them. Result: there vote doesn't count. What they did now however, is just a travesty of democracy. I would prefer to look for the options of a re-primary in those 2 states.

Except that's not an option. Removing all of the delegates was a mistake. It really was. And at this point they WERE punished. They wanted to matter. They were a big story, but in the end, the results actually don't matter. I approve of that. At this point, it doesn't hurt anyone to give in on the delegate thing.

Personally I think they should Obama should have just encouraged them to go ahead and seat them the way Clinton requested and the immediate response by Supers should have been the waterfall that ends the contest. Everyone wins and Obama is magnamous.

All this has done in the end is cost Obama any chance of winning Michigan in November, and with it the election.

All this has done in the end is cost Obama any chance of winning Michigan in November, and with it the election.

That depends largely if someone can put the pin back. Here's hoping.

All this has done in the end is cost Obama any chance of winning Michigan in November, and with it the election.

Why? Michigan chose the outcome they finally agreed to. I think it will hurt him among Clinton supporters, but why would the state that chose the outcome be upset by it?

All this has done in the end is cost Obama any chance of winning Michigan in November, and with it the election.

1- There are ways for Obama to win without Michigan.

2- If Hillary does her job and starts to support Obama, most likely in Florida and Michigan specifically, it'll not be an issue.

All this has done in the end is cost Obama any chance of winning Michigan in November, and with it the election.

then it was doomed the moment michigan moved its primary up.

didnt the republicans also cut michigans delegates by half?

then it was doomed the moment michigan moved its primary up.

didnt the republicans also cut michigans delegates by half?

Even assuming this costs Obama Michigan, which I doubt, there's one way Obama could win without Michigan, Florida or Ohio: By picking up NM, NV, CO and Louisiana (Remember Katrina? Bush ignoring New Orleans?) or Virginia. And that assumes Obama can't win ANY of Florida, Michigan and Ohio. It also assumes he wins Pennsylvania, but still. The end result would be 270-268 in the first case, 274-264 in the other.

Even assuming this costs Obama Michigan, which I doubt, there's one way Obama could win without Michigan, Florida or Ohio: By picking up NM, NV, CO and Louisiana (Remember Katrina? Bush ignoring New Orleans?). And that assumes Obama can't win ANY of these states. It also assumes he wins Pennsylvania, but still. The end result would be 270-268.

yeah

it seems like a huge issue today but only the political geeks (like us) are paying attention to it. by november, no one will care. by the convention no one will care. maybe by next week no one willl care.

as clinton's supporters get used to the idea that she isnt getting the nomination they will take a new look at obama and the vast majority of them will vote for him in the fall.

2,118 is now the magic number.

Heh? Did I do the math wrong?

Heh? Did I do the math wrong?

The evidence suggests YES.

The evidence suggests YES.

Well, yes, that's obvious. Where did I go wrong, exactly?

1- There are ways for Obama to win without Michigan.

And most of them involve winning in Ohio, where he keeps getting further behind with each poll.

then it was doomed the moment michigan moved its primary up.

didnt the republicans also cut michigans delegates by half?

Not to my knowledge.

Even assuming this costs Obama Michigan, which I doubt, there's one way Obama could win without Michigan, Florida or Ohio: By picking up NM, NV, CO and Louisiana (Remember Katrina? Bush ignoring New Orleans?) or Virginia. And that assumes Obama can't win ANY of Florida, Michigan and Ohio. It also assumes he wins Pennsylvania, but still. The end result would be 270-268 in the first case, 274-264 in the other.

NM and CO, he's already got. Both are swiniging sharply in his favor, and PA should be no problem. NV is iffy, but certainly not impossible. VA is a longshot, but if turnout is heavy on the DC suburbs, maybe. LA he hasn't got a prayer. All Katrina did was to chase out or drown all the Democrats in LA. He's also (at last I knew) losing WI. I certainly would like for you all to turn out to be correct, but I have little hope.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

The Democratic Party continues its' headlong rush to coronate Barack Obama, and in the process it has utterly betrayed a core principal that was set down in 2000, which is the notion of every vote being counted. In order to protect Barack Obama and his delegate lead, they have shorted Hillary Clinton on hers. I feel utterly betrayed by a party that I have supported ever since I became old enough to vote.

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

Goodbye, Clinton. Your career is over. I've defended very often that you would stop when the time came, but this is too far. You cannot retract these statements. You can't come back from where you've taken this. It won't matter if you support Obama at this point. You've done damage that cannot be undone. It was fine to argue to the committee, but these threats have gone too far. You are selfish and a cheater. You admitted that there was a fair compromise some time ago. Rather than going for that compromise you seek to pretend as if Obama supporters deserve no representation in Michigan. You, yourself, used the argument that Uncommitted was the vote of Obama supporters when Obama's team complained about not being on the ticket. This is beyond the pale. Join McCain's campaign, because at this point, you're campaigning for his election. Your chances are over and there is no rational person who thinks there is a scenario where you become the candidate and still get the support of people like myself who recognize that you've been trying to cheat your way to victory since Feb 5.

And most of them involve winning in Ohio, where he keeps getting further behind with each poll.



Not to my knowledge.



NM and CO, he's already got. Both are swiniging sharply in his favor, and PA should be no problem. NV is iffy, but certainly not impossible. VA is a longshot, but if turnout is heavy on the DC suburbs, maybe. LA he hasn't got a prayer. All Katrina did was to chase out or drown all the Democrats in LA. He's also (at last I knew) losing WI. I certainly would like for you all to turn out to be correct, but I have little hope.

They don't need to win Michigan. They don't need to win Ohio. They don't need to win Florida. (sarcasm)

I think that tonight's decision sealed Obama's victory and the Democratic ticket's defeat in November.

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

Goodbye, Clinton. Your career is over. I've defended very often that you would stop when the time came, but this is too far. You cannot retract these statements. You can't come back from where you've taken this. It won't matter if you support Obama at this point. You've done damage that cannot be undone. It was fine to argue to the committee, but these threats have gone too far. You are selfish and a cheater. You admitted that there was a fair compromise some time ago. Rather than going for that compromise you seek to pretend as if Obama supporters deserve no representation in Michigan. You, yourself, used the argument that Uncommitted was the vote of Obama supporters when Obama's team complained about not being on the ticket. This is beyond the pale. Join McCain's campaign, because at this point, you're campaigning for his election. Your chances are over and there is no rational person who thinks there is a scenario where you become the candidate and still get the support of people like myself who recognize that you've been trying to cheat your way to victory since Feb 5.

I am infuriated. I see this as a contravention of the democratic process. If Obama is the nominee, I am prepared to throw my support to John McCain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

The Democratic Party continues its' headlong rush to coronate Barack Obama, and in the process it has utterly betrayed a core principal that was set down in 2000, which is the notion of every vote being counted. In order to protect Barack Obama and his delegate lead, they have shorted Hillary Clinton on hers. I feel utterly betrayed by a party that I have supported ever since I became old enough to vote.

Oh, Christ. That is not the principle of the Primary.

Stop comparing a scenario where voters were told their votes counted and then they didn't to a scenario where voters were told their votes didn't count and then some of them did. It's the complete opposite scenario.

You asked for a change of rules, cheating, to overturn the Obama lead. That wasn't going to happen. Clinton supported those rules. Her campaign supported those rules. As stupid as they are, changing them at the END of the race to change the outcome is cheating. Plain and simple. There is nothing rational about expecting them to overturn the legal elections of 48 states by not just changing the rules, but also by "enfranchising" Clinton supporters in Michigan and denying Obama supporters.

I know you don't like Obama supporters but you cannot give the vote to Michigan supporters without also giving it to Obama supporters as well.

I am infuriated. I see this as a contravention of the democratic process. If Obama is the nominee, I am prepared to throw my support to John McCain.

I hope you can look our men and women in the military in the face and tell them that their lives are less important than spite.

I hope you can look women in the face and tell them their bodily autonomy is less important than spite.

I hope you can look the poor in our country in the face and tell them that their healthy care is less important than spite.

I hope you can look the middle class in our country in the face and tell that you don't care if they exist because spite is more important.

They don't need to win Michigan. They don't need to win Ohio. They don't need to win Florida. (sarcasm)

I think that tonight's decision sealed Obama's victory and the Democratic ticket's defeat in November.

Did you really expect this committee to overturn the will of 48 states who followed the rules AND to overturn the will of Michigan which said they didn't want to deny the very large group of Obama supporters in their state.

Did you really think that Obama supporters don't deserve to be represented in Michigan just like Clinton supporters?

I hope you can look our men and women in the military in the face and tell them that their lives are less important than spite.

I hope you can look women in the face and tell them their bodily autonomy is less important than spite.

I hope you can look the poor in our country in the face and tell them that their healthy care is less important than spite.

I hope you can look the middle class in our country in the face and tell that you don't care if they exist because spite is more important.

I don't care to argue those points with you because I know doing so is pointless...you will not accept any rationale or defense I offer.

I think it suffices to say, however, that tonight millions of Clinton supporters took one more step in the process of flipping from blue to red.

And while we're talking about it. let's talk about Rule 13.

According to Clinton, the Michigan primary was not binding. That is according to Clinton shortly before the primary was held.

"Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference, or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants."

That's rule 13. THere was no binding Primary. There was no binding caucus. There was a convention and as Clinton's campaign has REPEATEDLY said during the hearing today, there was a huge call for Obama delegates and they expect the uncommitted delegates to go to Obama at the Denver convention. In other words, the investigation by the Michigan leadership that used the convention and the investigation of voters to reach a decision on the amount of delegates was EXACTLY in the spirit and letter of the law according to the formation of DNC.

I don't care to argue those points with you because I know doing so is pointless...you will not accept any rationale or defense I offer.

I think it suffices to say, however, that tonight millions of Clinton supporters took one more step in the process of flipping from blue to red.

What rationale do you have, exactly? They didn't allow Clinton to essentially carry Michigan in a Saddam-Hussein-style election and that made you angry enough to shoot yourself in the foot?

You'll pack up your toys and go home if Clinton doesn't get to screw completely with the rules and get nominated regardless? That's what you're saying?

Tough. Because Clinton doesn't matter anymore.

Half votes for both Florida and Michigan? Gah. The DNC has no balls.

I don't care to argue those points with you because I know doing so is pointless...you will not accept any rationale or defense I offer.

I think it suffices to say, however, that tonight millions of Clinton supporters took one more step in the process of flipping from blue to red.

Sure I will. Tell me your support is because McCain holds the better position on that and we can discuss that. You didn't say that. What you said was that you would vote out of SPITE.

If you hate America enough that the office of the President is nothing but a tool for vengeance, well I don't know what to tell you. I'm done pretending like you've got an argument here. You don't. Every time you're challenged on these points you make some silly claim that about "Obama supporters".

I can tell you what never happened. We never claimed that ONLY Obama supporters should have their vote recognized. NEVER. You are upset because the state of MICHIGAN, not the DNC, but the state of Michigan came up with how THEY want THEIR delegates apportioned and it leaves the candidate that was losing, still losing, and the candidate that was winning, still winning.

Hillary lost. YOU and SHE wanted to change the rules in a way that recognized votes for her that SHE said didn't count, but did not recognize votes for Obama that also didn't count. I'm done pretending like that is a rational position. It's not. If McCain wins the election it will be because Hillary Clinton decided that she cared more about herself that her country. That's a fact.

i dont see the point in getting all pissy over the non-clinton solution to the michigan/florida problem. even if she got everything she wanted she still wouldnt get the nomination.

are you suggesting that its clinton or no one? that any result no matter how mandated by the legitimate system set up by the democratic party that doesnt end in clinton getting the nomination is inherently WRONG?

clinton has lost. there is no other fair outcome than that obama end up as the nominee of the party. if you cant deal with that you are not a democrat but a clintoncrat.

Sure I will. Tell me your support is because McCain holds the better position on that and we can discuss that. You didn't say that. What you said was that you would vote out of SPITE.

If you hate America enough that the office of the President is nothing but a tool for vengeance, well I don't know what to tell you. I'm done pretending like you've got an argument here. You don't. Every time you're challenged on these points you make some silly claim that about "Obama supporters".

I can tell you what never happened. We never claimed that ONLY Obama supporters should have their vote recognized. NEVER. You are upset because the state of MICHIGAN, not the DNC, but the state of Michigan came up with how THEY want THEIR delegates apportioned and it leaves the candidate that was losing, still losing, and the candidate that was winning, still winning.

Hillary lost. YOU and SHE wanted to change the rules in a way that recognized votes for her that SHE said didn't count, but did not recognize votes for Obama that also didn't count. I'm done pretending like that is a rational position. It's not. If McCain wins the election it will be because Hillary Clinton decided that she cared more about herself that her country. That's a fact.

Let's be less specific than that: Shalrirochia wanted even to change the rules of debate in this forum, crying foul about whoever dared to disagree with him, all the while doing much worse. So, I raise a question here, did Hillary infuse her supporters with such a sense of entitlement and pretend-victimization that it resulted in this?

I am infuriated. I see this as a contravention of the democratic process. If Obama is the nominee, I am prepared to throw my support to John McCain.

I am furious as well. Clinton has already cheated by getting ANY delegates at all. To agree to a set of rules, argue they should be changed when it turns out you're loosing by them, and then threaten to to turn over the table when you get your way and are still loosing is simply unforgivable.

For you to argue that your candidate got cheated and that the process was contravened when she broke the rules is ... I have not the words that would be acceptable on these boards.

Half votes for both Florida and Michigan? Gah. The DNC has no balls.

Half votes is what the RNC did. It's a fair outcome they should have selected before. The candidates should have campaigned there and this mess wouldn't exist. They made a mistake. This addresses it, but nothing can fix it.

Unfortunately, in a very selfish move, Clinton changed her position for the second time. She originally supported their decision, a decision made by her supporters. Then she said they should be counted in full but that Uncommitted should go to Obama, and she argued that Obama was on the "ballot" essentially because "everyone" knew about the uncommitted effort. It was this last change that was too much. Now she makes it look like it was stolen.

You can't count an election where one of the candidates couldn't be voted for. You simply cannot do it. It was then she started pulling down the cathedral and there is no rational way to claim it's otherwise. She wants to count Obama supporters from 49 states and Clinton supporters from 50.

I am infuriated. I see this as a contravention of the democratic process. If Obama is the nominee, I am prepared to throw my support to John McCain.

So you're going to to burn down the house over four delegates?

i dont see the point in getting all pissy over the non-clinton solution to the michigan/florida problem. even if she got everything she wanted she still wouldnt get the nomination.

are you suggesting that its clinton or no one? that any result no matter how mandated by the legitimate system set up by the democratic party that doesnt end in clinton getting the nomination is inherently WRONG?

clinton has lost. there is no other fair outcome than that obama end up as the nominee of the party. if you cant deal with that you are not a democrat but a clintoncrat.

I don't think it matters. Obama will go on to be defeated in the general. He is unlikely to win. The numbers are pretty stark and clear about that. If he can't compete in Florida and he can't compete in Ohio or Michigan, then that leaves him in a pretty sorry state electorally.

Barack Obama's the wrong choice. Not because of his positions. Not because of his message. He's the wrong choice because he will not win. If the Party desires to throw the dice with him, that is its' right. I have been overruled. But I suspect that I'm right, and his supporters are wrong. Time will tell who's correct and who's in error.

Wanting to change the rules at the end of a contest in order to change the winner is cheating.

Wanting to change the rules so that 50 states count for one candidate and 45 count for the other, ignoring the results of not just the 48 states that followed the rules, but further claiming that 4 of those states shouldn't even ben considered in the reasons that Supers choose a candidate, is cheating.

Let's start calling it like it is. No more cotton gloves. If you want to strap the protection of our veterans, the protection of a woman's right to choose, and the protection of our rights in general to a bomb and threaten to light fuse, light away. There was an argument made against Obama about appeasement. He's right. Appeasement just makes people push farther and farther, and this is proof. The DNC should have offered nothing. Clearly, attempting to find a fair solution isn't what Clinton is after.

I am furious as well. Clinton has already cheated by getting ANY delegates at all. To agree to a set of rules, argue they should be changed when it turns out you're loosing by them, and then threaten to to turn over the table when you get your way and are still loosing is simply unforgivable.

For you to argue that your candidate got cheated and that the process was contravened when she broke the rules is ... I have not the words that would be acceptable on these boards.
^ That.

I don't think it matters. Obama will go on to be defeated in the general. He is unlikely to win. The numbers are pretty stark and clear about that. If he can't compete in Florida and he can't compete in Ohio or Michigan, then that leaves him in a pretty sorry state electorally.

Barack Obama's the wrong choice. Not because of his positions. Not because of his message. He's the wrong choice because he will not win. If the Party desires to throw the dice with him, that is its' right. I have been overruled. But I suspect that I'm right, and his supporters are wrong. Time will tell who's correct and who's in error.

the only way he will lose is if the republicans cheat.

the numbers are irrelevant this far from the election.

I don't think it matters. Obama will go on to be defeated in the general. He is unlikely to win. The numbers are pretty stark and clear about that. If he can't compete in Florida and he can't compete in Ohio or Michigan, then that leaves him in a pretty sorry state electorally.

Barack Obama's the wrong choice. Not because of his positions. Not because of his message. He's the wrong choice because he will not win. If the Party desires to throw the dice with him, that is its' right. I have been overruled. But I suspect that I'm right, and his supporters are wrong. Time will tell who's correct and who's in error.

The problem is he CAN compete in Florida, he IS competing in Ohio, he's doing well in Michigan and there IS a way for him to win even without these states.

The second problem is you keep on acting as if his very act of running against that cursed hag were somehow "cheating" her. You act as if she's a victim of the fact that she's been competed against.

It's not us who want a coronation.

It's YOU!

I don't think it matters. Obama will go on to be defeated in the general. He is unlikely to win. The numbers are pretty stark and clear about that. If he can't compete in Florida and he can't compete in Ohio or Michigan, then that leaves him in a pretty sorry state electorally.

Um, that's actually not what the numbers say. He IS competing in Michigan and in Ohio and that's with a split party.


Barack Obama's the wrong choice. Not because of his positions. Not because of his message. He's the wrong choice because he will not win. If the Party desires to throw the dice with him, that is its' right. I have been overruled. But I suspect that I'm right, and his supporters are wrong. Time will tell who's correct and who's in error.

What part of his message? What is the message you don't like?

Bush has been playing loose with the rules for 8 years. When he doesn't like them, he changes them. When he's losing an election, change the rules, right?

Does that sound like someone currently running for office? It ain't Obama.

Wanting to change the rules at the end of a contest in order to change the winner is cheating.

Wanting to change the rules so that 50 states count for one candidate and 45 count for the other, ignoring the results of not just the 48 states that followed the rules, but further claiming that 4 of those states shouldn't even ben considered in the reasons that Supers choose a candidate, is cheating.

Let's start calling it like it is. No more cotton gloves. If you want to strap the protection of our veterans, the protection of a woman's right to choose, and the protection of our rights in general to a bomb and threaten to light fuse, light away. There was an argument made against Obama about appeasement. He's right. Appeasement just makes people push farther and farther, and this is proof. The DNC should have offered nothing. Clearly, attempting to find a fair solution isn't what Clinton is after.

I think there is only one possible response to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TylvUGJIi_w

So, Shal, did you just show up to threaten and leave? You don't actually want to explain your position or offer any kind of resolution? Nothing?

So, Shal, did you just show up to threaten and leave? You don't actually want to explain your position or offer any kind of resolution? Nothing?

Hillary and her supporters get more and more alike...

Hillary and her supporters get more and more alike...

Don't do that. I don't like when they broad brush us. I don't like when you broad brush them. It's irrational at best and it's downright counterproductive at worst. All you do is justify his irrational claims about how Obama supporters are all out to insult and disenfranchise Clinto supporters. It's not only not true, but it's the opposite of true.

The problem is he CAN compete in Florida, he IS competing in Ohio, he's doing well in Michigan and there IS a way for him to win even without these states.

The second problem is you keep on acting as if his very act of running against that cursed hag were somehow "cheating" her. You act as if she's a victim of the fact that she's been competed against.

It's not us who want a coronation.

It's YOU!

Every poll I have seen shows him losing in Florida, losing in Michigan, and tied in Ohio. And I have seen many, many polls from many, many different sources. Defeats in Florida and Michigan would likely doom his candidacy. Defeats in Florida, Michigan, AND Ohio would certainly seal it. The Obamites are completely unwilling to face statistical fact. They think that the power of their beliefs is sufficient to overcome any obstacle. One of them even went so far as to tell me that Obama will still win even if he loses Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. It's as if they think some magical electoral fairy is going to come down and grant victory to him.

The fact is that there are a very few swing states out of the 50. Those states have not changed much in the past decade or decade. The fact is that Clinton has won each of the big swing states by large margins. That's not by accident. She is better positioned to win because she will appeal to people in places that can be won by a Democrat. I readily acknowledge that Obama might get more votes. But it doesn't matter if you lose in Louisiana 51% to 49% instead of Clinton's loss of 55%/ 45%. A loss is a loss in the general, and McCain still gets ALL those electoral votes regardless of how close it was.

I am infuriated. I see this as a contravention of the democratic process. If Obama is the nominee, I am prepared to throw my support to John McCain.

WOW!!! I could say something but I do not want to get banned.

I will say this though...this is a very childish post.

WOW!!! I could say something but I do not want to get banned.

I will say this though...this is a very childish post.

We will see who is being childish. Barring some type of miracle, Barack Obama will be the nominee. My head tells me he's going to lose. McCain is not like a normal Republican. He has surprising strength even in a year where everything seems to be running against him. He will meet Obama head on, and I am convinced he (McCain) will win. I could of course be wrong. But I don't think so.

Every poll I have seen shows him losing in Florida, losing in Michigan, and tied in Ohio. And I have seen many, many polls from many, many different sources. Defeats in Florida and Michigan would likely doom his candidacy. Defeats in Florida, Michigan, AND Ohio would certainly seal it. The Obamites are completely unwilling to face statistical fact. They think that the power of their beliefs is sufficient to overcome any obstacle. One of them even went so far as to tell me that Obama will still win even if he loses Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. It's as if they think some magical electoral fairy is going to come down and grant victory to him.

Or perhaps we recognize that the "defeats" in Michigan is by about a point. We recognize that he's only just started campaigning and that Clinton's supporters are still attacking him. We recognize that he is competing in Michigan while half the party is currently campaigning against him. Perhaps, rationally, we recognize that the general campaign will change the field just a bit.



The fact is that there are a very few swing states out of the 50. Those states have not changed much in the past decade or decade. The fact is that Clinton has won each of the big swing states by large margins. That's not by accident. She is better positioned to win because she will appeal to people in places that can be won by a Democrat. I readily acknowledge that Obama might get more votes. But it doesn't matter if you lose in Louisiana 51% to 49% instead of Clinton's loss of 55%/ 45%. A loss is a loss in the general, and McCain still gets ALL those electoral votes regardless of how close it was.

You talked about statistics. Statistics support that your first line there is utterly false. There are MANY, MANY states that have swung in the last four elections, first of all. Second, there are states that are up for grabs according to the same polls you're using to attack Obama's electability in the first paragragh. Virginia. Colorado. New Mexico. Etc.

You also fail to note that there is a strong conservative candidate on the ballot in many, many states, named Barr. He is not being accounted for in the polling. The last time a strong conservative ran against the Republicans there were all kinds of states that flipped.

And I keep asking this question. Do you agree that things will change if Clinton is suddenly running against the Republicans, like Obama is already doing? Do you agree that the Republican attack machine when it is aimed at Clinton like it already is at Obama will have an effect?

I don't think it matters. Obama will go on to be defeated in the general. He is unlikely to win. The numbers are pretty stark and clear about that. If he can't compete in Florida and he can't compete in Ohio or Michigan, then that leaves him in a pretty sorry state electorally.

Barack Obama's the wrong choice. Not because of his positions. Not because of his message. He's the wrong choice because he will not win. If the Party desires to throw the dice with him, that is its' right. I have been overruled. But I suspect that I'm right, and his supporters are wrong. Time will tell who's correct and who's in error.

At this point, if he looses, it will be laid at the Unmentionable One's and her supporters feet. The future blood of US soldiers in Iraq is on the hands of people like you and the Unmentionable One if your prediction indeed comes to pass.

We will see who is being childish. Barring some type of miracle, Barack Obama will be the nominee. My head tells me he's going to lose. McCain is not like a normal Republican. He has surprising strength even in a year where everything seems to be running against him. He will meet Obama head on, and I am convinced he (McCain) will win. I could of course be wrong. But I don't think so.

This strength only appeared when the party began to split as a result of accusations by one candidate that she was cheated by sexists.

What part of his message? What is the message you don't like?

Bush has been playing loose with the rules for 8 years. When he doesn't like them, he changes them. When he's losing an election, change the rules, right?

Does that sound like someone currently running for office? It ain't Obama.

I'll ask you again, since so far the only thing you've claimed about Obama is that you don't like his supporters and that he'll lose.

You've not supported even once any reason why you'd vote against him other than spite. What part of his message is it that you don't agree with to such a degree that you'd vote for McCain?

Every poll I have seen shows him losing in Florida, losing in Michigan, and tied in Ohio. And I have seen many, many polls from many, many different sources. Defeats in Florida and Michigan would likely doom his candidacy. Defeats in Florida, Michigan, AND Ohio would certainly seal it. The Obamites are completely unwilling to face statistical fact. They think that the power of their beliefs is sufficient to overcome any obstacle. One of them even went so far as to tell me that Obama will still win even if he loses Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. It's as if they think some magical electoral fairy is going to come down and grant victory to him.

The fact is that there are a very few swing states out of the 50. Those states have not changed much in the past decade or decade. The fact is that Clinton has won each of the big swing states by large margins. That's not by accident. She is better positioned to win because she will appeal to people in places that can be won by a Democrat. I readily acknowledge that Obama might get more votes. But it doesn't matter if you lose in Louisiana 51% to 49% instead of Clinton's loss of 55%/ 45%. A loss is a loss in the general, and McCain still gets ALL those electoral votes regardless of how close it was.

You assume he'll lose Ohio and Michigan. In both states he's the front-runner. You assume he'll lose Florida. When Hillary starts being useful for once in her life, Florida will become more favorable for Obama. Furthermore, Hillary doesn't put anything in play.

I don't think it matters. Obama will go on to be defeated in the general. He is unlikely to win. The numbers are pretty stark and clear about that. If he can't compete in Florida and he can't compete in Ohio or Michigan, then that leaves him in a pretty sorry state electorally.

Uh...RCP average indicates an Obama victory in Ohio as well as in Pennsylvania. Now can I see proof to back this up?

Barack Obama's the wrong choice. Not because of his positions. Not because of his message. He's the wrong choice because he will not win.

Proof?

If the Party desires to throw the dice with him, that is its' right. I have been overruled. But I suspect that I'm right, and his supporters are wrong. Time will tell who's correct and who's in error.

The bolded is the first right thing you've stated.

Barring some type of miracle, Barack Obama will be the nominee. My head tells me he's going to lose.

Your head also told you he was going to lose the nomination.

Or was that your gut?

Every poll I have seen shows him losing in Florida, losing in Michigan, and tied in Ohio. And I have seen many, many polls from many, many different sources. Defeats in Florida and Michigan would likely doom his candidacy. Defeats in Florida, Michigan, AND Ohio would certainly seal it. The Obamites are completely unwilling to face statistical fact. They think that the power of their beliefs is sufficient to overcome any obstacle. One of them even went so far as to tell me that Obama will still win even if he loses Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. It's as if they think some magical electoral fairy is going to come down and grant victory to him.

The fact is that there are a very few swing states out of the 50. Those states have not changed much in the past decade or decade. The fact is that Clinton has won each of the big swing states by large margins. That's not by accident. She is better positioned to win because she will appeal to people in places that can be won by a Democrat. I readily acknowledge that Obama might get more votes. But it doesn't matter if you lose in Louisiana 51% to 49% instead of Clinton's loss of 55%/ 45%. A loss is a loss in the general, and McCain still gets ALL those electoral votes regardless of how close it was.

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

If you win by 3% points, you'll pretty much win the general election.

We will see who is being childish. Barring some type of miracle, Barack Obama will be the nominee.

The only miracle left for Senator Clinton is cheating Obama out of the nomination.

You love cheaters right?

My head tells me he's going to lose.

Though election numbers at this point are meaningless, I have a feeling when November rolls around, it will be Obama being declared the next President of the United States. He has a hell of a lot more going for him than Hillary does.

McCain is not like a normal Republican. He has surprising strength even in a year where everything seems to be running against him. He will meet Obama head on, and I am convinced he (McCain) will win. I could of course be wrong. But I don't think so.

I think you are but at least you are starting to use sense when you start throwing in that this is opinion and not cold hard fact.

Oh, May 6th. Now I get it? Anyhow, the site is still limited. Using polls from the 27th there were many states whose last poll was F#cking February 28th. Pardon me with mixing up a date. Do you think Feb 28th was a valid date that should be taken seriously? It's June, so even early May limits what we can learn from these poll results.
You mixed up many dates, made claims which were false ("all SurveyUSA"), and felt that it was okay to suggest that it was I who was being "intellectually dishonest", not once but twice. You can't see the disconnect?

My favorite analysis is Vegas.
One thing about Vegas though, is that the odds are constantly changing, depending where the money is going. The odds will change and McCain will be favoured before this election is over.

None of this changes the fact that she is not going to be the nominee. The power sharing of a Clinton Obama ticket will not work. She's done.
You got that wrong....Obama is the one that is done.

You got that wrong....Obama is the one that is done.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Boy this is rich.

*dies of laughter*

You got that wrong....Obama is the one that is done.

The only way your sentence is remotely true is if you're actually mistaking present participle for past participle. If that's the case, I'm a Brazilian, correcting you on your English. I'll assume you're not Quebecois.

One thing about Vegas though, is that the odds are constantly changing, depending where the money is going. The odds will change and McCain will be favoured before this election is over.

You were claiming that he is favored over Obama now. He isn't. Obama is favored.


You got that wrong....Obama is the one that is done.

Only if your candidate can't undo the harm she's done by claiming that her failures were not due to her, but due to cheating and sexism.

If she doesn't, Clinton will be a political paraih. He narrative has ensured that she will be viewed as the cause of the downfall of Obama if it happens. She created a pile of crap for herself. It's in everyone's interest for her to climb out and clean off and an Obama win is the only way she does that.

Every poll I have seen shows him losing in Florida, losing in Michigan, and tied in Ohio. And I have seen many, many polls from many, many different sources. Defeats in Florida and Michigan would likely doom his candidacy. Defeats in Florida, Michigan, AND Ohio would certainly seal it. The Obamites are completely unwilling to face statistical fact. They think that the power of their beliefs is sufficient to overcome any obstacle. One of them even went so far as to tell me that Obama will still win even if he loses Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. It's as if they think some magical electoral fairy is going to come down and grant victory to him.

The fact is that there are a very few swing states out of the 50. Those states have not changed much in the past decade or decade. The fact is that Clinton has won each of the big swing states by large margins. That's not by accident. She is better positioned to win because she will appeal to people in places that can be won by a Democrat. I readily acknowledge that Obama might get more votes. But it doesn't matter if you lose in Louisiana 51% to 49% instead of Clinton's loss of 55%/ 45%. A loss is a loss in the general, and McCain still gets ALL those electoral votes regardless of how close it was.
We're just going to go ahead and doubt you're "lots of polls" without links to said polls. Call us nutty, but you have not a lot of credibility. Sorry. If it makes you feel any better, I'd expect the same treatment for myself. If I started stomping around about a bunch of unnamed polls that seal doom 5 months from now, I'd expect people to call me on it.

Now. First. The +1 game. Played it in 2000. Lost. Played it in 2004, when the candidacy should have been a cake walk. Lost. Electability. Lost and lost. Perhaps you think the failed strategy will work this time, and you know what, it might. But the climate was good in 2004 and it still came up snake eyes. Some states aren't going to change-but three times already districts that have been red for longer than some of your examples suddenly have Democratic representation. Is he going to turn every state blue? No. But by contesting every state, the overall effect for the party will be greater, and there may even be some surprises.

Now, onto your keystate assertion. I could claim polls and not link to any, but that ain't my style.

Lets start, because the tab is already open with Michigan (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/michigan.html). There isn't any up to date data there on Clinton, but it has Obama within 4 points of McCain. If, five months out, you are willing to concede the state because of a four point lead, then, Chicken Little, you will lose a lot of elections. Obama looked at a twenty point deficit five months ago and is now all but unbeatable. If superdelegates didn't exist, he'd be the nominee right now regardless of todays decision. Let that soak in for a second. Without super delegates, Obama would be the undisputed nominee no matter how they alloted Michigan and Florida. So, you'll excuse me if during the heated primary where the state's fate is in question a four point deficit doesn't make me tear at my shirt and weep into the sky crying, "WHY?!?"

Even at CH's favorite until it tells a story not favorable to Clinton there isn't a poll any later than the beginning of this month in Michigan, and those show her tied. I don't see this killer edge there you seem to imply she has. On top of that, Obama has proven himself again and again a better campaigner. He has closed gaps and opened leads, and changed Clinton states into Obama states. Meanwhile, Clinton has squandered an immense lead, party good will, about the best brand name she could hope for, and a sense of inevability.

So, that's that for Michigan. They are both in the same boat, I go with the person that has better demonstrated how to run a competitive campaign.

Onto Ohio. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html)

Ah, the faint glimmer of a hope. While the average give Obama the state, it's fueled by a poll that at its closest is within 10 points of the other two polls. SurveyUSA's number is unlikely given the other two polls, so we'll give that Obama trailing by as much as 4 points again. See previous statements about a 4 point gap. Clinton does in fact have an edge here, but to call Obama out of it 5 months away again indicates you are too cowardly for politics.

Now Florida (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html) might be where you have a point. The poll that's dragging down Clinton's average is two months old while Obama's anchor is only a little over a week old.

But then, here's where I get to make a point of my own-in the poll two months ago, Clinton was losing Florida. In two months she went from behind to a fairly good lead against McCain. Two months. Totally different dynamic. Two months. There are five months between now and November. Five. In contest after contest, Obama has been a strong campaigner. Five months can create a lot of movement.

You know what can disrupt that? A bunch of Clinton supporters kicking over the tables, stomping their feet, and taking their ball and going home. But lets be absolutely clear about this: This is not an Obama thing, this is a you thing. You are doing this. You are causing this problem, not Obama. Obama did nothing to you except dare to run an effective campaign. Nothing was stolen from you, nothing was stolen from Clinton. You were not wronged. You've accused Obama and his supporters of everything under the sun and yet whine about being demeaned. If you overturn the cart it's because you and your candidate cannot see the forest through the trees, it's because her campaign won't accept responsability and her followers have gone along with it.

EDIT:
Fuck, I got sidetracked, I forgot Pennsylvania. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pennsylvania.html)

They're both winning that, and you already seem to think that 4% is insurmountable, so what's the problem?

You know what can disrupt that? A bunch of Clinton supporters kicking over the tables, stomping their feet, and taking their ball and going home. But lets be absolutely clear about this: This is not an Obama thing, this is a you thing. You are doing this. You are causing this problem, not Obama. Obama did nothing to you except dare to run an effective campaign. Nothing was stolen from you, nothing was stolen from Clinton. You were not wronged. You've accused Obama and his supporters of everything under the sun and yet whine about being demeaned. If you overturn the cart it's because you and your candidate cannot see the forest through the trees, it's because her campaign won't accept responsability and her followers have gone along with it.

This.

And again, if I ever have to beat you in an argument, CTOAN, it'll be just about the biggest effort of my life.

This.

And again, if I ever have to beat you in an argument, CTOAN, it'll be just about the biggest effort of my life.

It's not hard. I just have to be wrong.

It's not hard. I just have to be wrong.

You seem to assume I tend to be right. :D

As I stated in the other thread:

And when those disenfranchised voters vote for Mc Cain in November, you will all say we shoulda done the right thing?

Seriously, I believe that Dems are self destructing here.

It may be the "damn primaries", but if Obama wins the nomination by default and/or goes on to lose the election, all you can do is second guess yourselves. Yes disenfranchisement is the correct word, especially when deciding such a high profile position.

Of course I don't. From what I understand, Obama voters voted for "uncommitted", since Obama's name was not on the ballot. Perhaps they will have to figure something out.

Am I? Eliminating the delegates from States totalling 29 million people is a big deal? Partial democracy is good enough for you as long as it allows your candidate to benefit?

Well, yes, there is a problem. For every problem there is a solution. Find a fair solution, and then democracy will be served.

What was stupid was disenfranchising them in the first place? Keeping them from having a say as to who will represent them on a national level is utter stupidity.

It appears that if the Republicans don't "swift boat" the Dems, they will do it to themselves. And when they get saddled with yet another Republican President, they will whine and complain for another 4 years.

well something should be done or the consequences will be grave.

At least the Republicans came up with a 50% rule. That is certainly more progressive than the Democrats choice.
I am glad to see that they are at least trying to resolve this issue. Unfortunately, it appears that even this process is divisive.

I believe that the Obama camp's refusal to deal with this issue in a timely and democratic manner earlier, will cost him votes in these two States. It is likely that he is not going to win Florida. The biggest fallout will be his failure to hold Michigan.

As I stated in the other thread:










I am glad to see that they are at least trying to resolve this issue. Unfortunately, it appears that even this process is divisive.

I believe that the Obama camp's refusal to deal with this issue in a timely and democratic manner earlier, will cost him votes in these two States. It is likely that he is not going to win Florida. The biggest fallout will be his failure to hold Michigan.
Since when is Obama the rules committee? Clinton's campaign is run by the people who made these rules. Ickes voted to take away Florida and Michigan's votes back in September.

As I stated in the other thread:










I am glad to see that they are at least trying to resolve this issue. Unfortunately, it appears that even this process is divisive.

Its only divisive because of the supporters of your pet candidate! Besides that, she'd flip flopped even on this.

I believe that the Obama camp's refusal to deal with this issue in a timely and democratic manner earlier, will cost him votes in these two States. It is likely that he is not going to win Florida. The biggest fallout will be his failure to hold Michigan.

Pardon him for following the rules. I guess it goes to show just how much you do not like those who follow the rules.

I believe that the Obama camp's refusal to deal with this issue in a timely and democratic manner earlier, will cost him votes in these two States. It is likely that he is not going to win Florida. The biggest fallout will be his failure to hold Michigan.

Let me get this straight.

Hillary supports them losing the votes.

Her supporters vote for this.

She proceeds to question it in order to disrupt it now.

And the OBAMA camp didn't "deal" with it?

Have you no shame?

Since when is Obama the rules committee? Clinton's campaign is run by the people who made these rules. Ickes voted to take away Florida and Michigan's votes back in September.

That tapeworm went on to threaten the committee about the Michigan votes he voted against and the deal he himself had proposed earlier.

That tapeworm went on to threaten the committee about the Michigan votes he voted against and the deal he himself had proposed earlier.

Talking about Ickes too much will reduce my posts to a stream of conscious of slurs and swear words.

Talking about Ickes too much will reduce my posts to a stream of conscious of slurs and swear words.

Stream of consciousness. ;)

*Graduated in Language and Literature*

Stream of consciousness. ;)

*Graduated in Language and Literature*

You know what? I think from now on you should start ranting in Portuguese whenever you get really cheesed off. I say this because I think it would be hilarious.

Stream of consciousness. ;)

*Graduated in Language and Literature*

I'm a lazy speller and paying more attention to the KONI Challenge race on TV. But I actually looked at that and thought, "Isn't there another n in there somewhere?" but the word wasn't underlined and the restart went all bad, so I went with what I had.

See? Easy-peazy, all I had to do was be wrong. ;p

You assume he'll lose Ohio and Michigan. In both states he's the front-runner.
He is?

Michigan Head-to-Head Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/michigan.html)

EPIC-MRA 05/19 - 05/22 600 RV 44 40 McCain +4.0
SurveyUSA 05/27 - 05/27 529 RV 41 37 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0

Ohio Head-to-Head Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html)

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

Florida Head-to-Head Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html)

Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1419 RV 45 41 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/19 - 05/19 500 LV 50 40 McCain +10.0
PPP (D) 03/15 - 03/16 618 LV 50 39 McCain +11.0

Since I am not a great fan of RCP, I will just report the polls they use and ignore the averaging factor they use.

You assume he'll lose Florida.
I do too.

When Hillary starts being useful for once in her life, Florida will become more favorable for Obama.
I believe that a lot of Hillary supporters will be voting for Nader.

Furthermore, Hillary doesn't put anything in play.
She doesn't?

Ohio Head-to-Head Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ohio.html)

Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1244 RV 48 41 Clinton +7.0
Rasmussen 05/15 - 05/15 500 LV 50 43 Clinton +7.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 527 RV 53 42 Clinton +11.0

Florida Head-to-Head Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html)

Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1419 RV 48 41 Clinton +7.0
Rasmussen 05/19 - 05/19 500 LV 47 41 Clinton +6.0
PPP (D) 03/15 - 03/16 618 LV 43 47 McCain +4.0

North Carolina Head-to-Head Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/north_carolina.html)

SurveyUSA 05/17 - 05/19 713 LV 43 49 Clinton +6.0
PPP (D) 05/08 - 05/09 616 LV 46 38 McCain +8.0
Rasmussen 05/08 - 05/08 500 LV 43 40 McCain +3.0

Compared to Obama:

SurveyUSA 05/17 - 05/19 713 LV 51 43 McCain +8.0
Civitas/TelOpinion (R) 05/14 - 05/17 700 V 44 39 McCain +5.0
PPP (D) 05/08 - 05/09 616 LV 49 42 McCain +7.0
Rasmussen 05/08 - 05/08 500 LV 48 45 McCain +3.0

Nevada Head-to-Head Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nevada.html)

Rasmussen 05/20 - 05/20 500 LV 41 46 Clinton +5.0
Rasmussen 04/21 - 04/21 500 LV 49 38 McCain +11.0
Rasmussen 03/19 - 03/19 500 LV 43 44 Clinton +1.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 612 RV 49 41 McCain +8.0
Research 2000 03/06 - 03/08 600 RV 44 39 McCain +5.0

Compared to Obama:

Rasmussen 05/20 - 05/20 500 LV 46 40 McCain +6.0
Rasmussen 04/21 - 04/21 500 LV 48 43 McCain +5.0
Rasmussen 03/19 - 03/19 500 LV 41 45 Obama +4.0
SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 611 RV 41 46 Obama +5.0
Research 2000 03/06 - 03/08 600 RV 43 42 McCain +1.0

Missouri Head-to-Head Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/missouri.html)

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 1523 LV 46 48 Clinton +2.0
Rasmussen 05/06 - 05/06 500 LV 45 43 McCain +2.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 542 RV 46 47 Clinton +1.0
Rasmussen 03/24 - 03/24 500 LV 50 41 McCain +9.0
SurveyUSA 03/14 - 03/16 536 RV 48 46 McCain +2.0

Compared to Obama:

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 1523 LV 48 45 McCain +3.0
Rasmussen 05/06 - 05/06 500 LV 47 41 McCain +6.0
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 542 RV 50 42 McCain +8.0
Rasmussen 03/24 - 03/24 500 LV 53 38 McCain +15.0
SurveyUSA 03/14 - 03/16 536 RV 53 39 McCain +14.0

Then Hillary also puts into play West Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Arkansas.

You know what? I think from now on you should start ranting in Portuguese whenever you get really cheesed off. I say this because I think it would be hilarious.

LOL

Indeed. At the May Day rally this year, the Brazillian guy who spoke for the dock workers who were getting the shaft from Kubota went back and forth between Japanese and Portugese, and apparantly the Portugese was... urmm... rather colorful. ;)

You know what? I think from now on you should start ranting in Portuguese whenever you get really cheesed off. I say this because I think it would be hilarious.

Well, I guess I COULD call Hillary a "piranha maldita filha de uma égua" and announce my hopes that she "morra de forma lenta e dolorosa" after she outlives her usefulness.

But why would you find it hilarious and why did you answer with that idea to that post I made? o_O

*snip*

Good thing if Hillary were in the general the Republicans would all support her efforts like they're doing. Clearly nothing would change in the general. The Democratic party would continue to have half of its members being told by Clinton that they've been cheated, once the primaries are over, right? Not if she's actually a democrat.

And Clinton's campaign would continue to be unopposed, right? I mean, it's not like Republicans are ever ruthless. I'm sure she'll continue to get the support of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and the Republican National. I mean, they've always loved her, right?

Good thing if Hillary were in the general the Republicans would all support her efforts like they're doing. Clearly nothing would change in the general. The Democratic party would continue to have half of its members being told by Clinton that they've been cheated, once the primaries are over, right? Not if she's actually a democrat.

And Clinton's campaign would continue to be unopposed, right? I mean, it's not like Republicans are ever ruthless. I'm sure she'll continue to get the support of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and the Republican National. I mean, they've always loved her, right?

I don't think you get it. These are polls. Polls are gospel.
Except when they don't support Clinton. Then they are unscientific.

I don't think you get it. These are polls. Polls are gospel.
Except when they don't support Clinton. Then they are unscientific.

And the same goes for rules, voter enfranchisement, primaries, caucuses, the Media, the Party, the situation, the debate moderators, the...

And the same goes for rules, voter enfranchisement, primaries, caucuses, the Media, the Party, the situation, the debate moderators, the...

lol

lol

Question, did that last "the..." enhance the joke or would reticences suffice?

Edit: Forgot to add "states"! Damn. It would've fitted so well there...

Question, did that last "the..." enhance the joke or would reticences suffice?

Edit: Forgot to add "states"! Damn. It would've fitted so well there...

The "the..." was good. And it covers your edit as well. ;)

I don't think you get it. These are polls. Polls are gospel.
Except when they don't support Clinton. Then they are unscientific.

He doesn't recognize how he invalidates them by refusing to address their context. For example, if a false rumor was circulating today about Clinton and New York and her position there collapsed, we'd have to account for that. It would be irrational to expect she'd lose it in the general.

Analyzing polls requires context and he is simply UNWILLING to actually analyze polls.

Analysis according to CH is "for me" "against me". Sound familiar?

The "the..." was good. And it covers your edit as well. ;)

Duly noted, for the next time. ;)

Analysis according to CH is "for me" "against me". Sound familiar?

Aside from Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ickes, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, and so on?

No, it doesn't.

Why? o_O

So, is this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html) the light at the end of the tunnel?